THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCES 

OF THE 

TBUTH OE THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS, 

STATED ANEW, 

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE DOUBTS AND 
DISCOVERIES OF MODERN TIMES; 

IN 

EIGHT LECTURES 

DELIVERED IN THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PULPIT, AT THE 
BAMPTON LECTURE FOR 1859. 

By GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A. 

LATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF EXETElt COLLEGE. 



o 



'Xpovos evperr)<;. 



SECOND EDITION. 



LONDON: 
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET 
' OXFORD. J. II. & JAMES PARKi:" 
1860. 

The iKii,i ■-/ rrantHatum ■■-,<■,< 



■as*** 



Tea fjbev 'yap dXrjOel irdvTa "avvahet rd virdpyovTcv tg> 8e 
^jrevSel ra-^v 8ia(p(ov€t Ta\r)9es. — ARISTOTLE. 



fy Transfer 

D. C. Public Library 



LONDON : PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET, 
AND CHARING - CROSS. 



WITHDR . 

Jj ^ Y 3 






I 



EXTRACT 

FROM 

THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT 

OF THE 

REV. JOHN BAMPTON, 

CANON OF SALISBURY. 



■ " I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the 

Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford, 
for ever, to have and to hold all and singular the said Lands or 
Estates upon trust, and to the intents and purposes hereinafter 
mentioned ; that is to say, I will and appoint that the Vice- 
Chancellor of the University of Oxford for the time being shall 
take and receive all the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and 
(after all taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions made) 
that he pay all the remainder to the endowment of eight Divinity 
Lecture Sermons, to be established for ever in the said Univer- 
sity, and to be performed in the manner following : 

" I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in Easter 
Term, a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of Colleges only, 
and by no others, in the room adjoining to the Printing-House, 
between the hours of ten in the morning and two in the after- 
noon, to preach eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year 
following, at St. Mary's in Oxford, between the commencement 
of the last month in Lent Term, and the end of the third week 
in Act Term. 

" Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture 
Sermons shall be preached upon either of the following Subjects 
— to confirm and establish the Christian Faith, and to confute all 
heretics and schismatics — upon the divine authority of the Holy 



iv EXTRACT FROM CANON BAMPTON'S WILL. 

Scriptures — upon the authority of the writings of the primitive 
Fathers, as to the faith and practice of the primitive Church — 
upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ — upon 
the Divinity of the Holy Ghost — upon the Articles of the 
Christian Faith, as comprehended in the Apostles' and Nicene 
Creeds. 

" Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity 
Lecture Sermons shall be always . printed, within two months 
after they are preached, and one copy shall be given to the 
Chancellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of every 
College, and one copy to the Mayor of the city of Oxford, and 
one copy to be put into the Bodleian Library ; and the expense of 
printing them shall be paid out of the revenue of the Land or 
Estates given for establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons ; 
and the Preacher shall not be paid, nor be entitled to the 
revenue, before they are printed. 

" Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified 
to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath taken 
the degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the two Univer- 
sities of Oxford or Cambridge ; and that the same person shall 
never preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons twice." 



PREFACE. 



These Lectures are an attempt to meet that latest 
phase of modern unbelief, which, professing a reve- 
rence for the name and person of Christ, and a real 
regard for the Scriptures, as embodiments of what is 
purest and holiest in religious feeling, lower Christ to 
a mere name, and empty the Scriptures of all their 
force and practical efficacy, by denying the historical 
character of the Biblical narrative. German Neology 
(as it is called) has of late years taken chiefly this 
line of attack, and has pursued it with so much vigour 
and apparent success, that, according to the complaints 
of German orthodox writers, " no objective ground or 
stand-point 1 ' is left, on which the believing Theo- 
logical science can build with any feeling of security*. 
Nor is the evil in question confined to Germany. 
The works regarded as most effective in destroying the 
historical faith of Christians abroad, have received 
an English dress, and are, it is to be feared, read 
by numbers of persons very ill prepared by historical 
studies to withstand their specious reasonings, alike 
in our own country and in America. The tone, 
moreover, of German historical writings generally is 
tinged with the prevailing unbelief ; and the faith of 
the historical student is liable to be undermined, 
almost without his having his suspicions aroused, by 

a See Ken's Preface to his Comment on Joshua, quoted in Note 24 to 
Lecture I. 



vi PREFACE. 

covert assumptions of the mythical character of the 
Sacred narrative, in works professing to deal chiefly, 
or entirely, with profane subjects. The author had 
long felt this to be a serious and a growing evil. 
Meanwhile his own studies, which have lain for the 
last eight or nine years almost exclusively in the field 
of Ancient History, had convinced him more and 
more of the thorough truthfulness and faithful accu- 
racy of the historical Scriptures. Circumstances had 
given him an intimate knowledge of the whole course 
of recent cuneiform, and (to some extent) of hiero- 
glyphical discovery; and he had been continually 
struck with the removal of difficulties, the accession of 
light, and the multiplication of minute points of agree- 
ment between the sacred and the profane, which 
resulted from the advances made in decyphering the 
Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Egyptian records. 
He therefore ventured, at the earliest moment which 
engagements of long standing would allow, to submit 
to the Heads of Colleges, electors to the office of 
Bampton Lecturer under the will of the Founder, the 
scheme of the following Discourses. His scheme 
having at once met with their approval, it only 
remained for him to use his best efforts in the elabo- 
ration of the subject which he had chosen. 

Two modes of meeting the attacks of the Mythical 
School presented themselves. He might make it his 
main object to examine the arguments of their prin- 
cipal writers seriatim, and to demonstrate from authen- 
tic records their weakness, perverseness, and falsity. 
Or touching only slightly on this purely controversial 



PREFACE. 



VI 1 



ground, he might endeavour to exhibit clearly and 
forcibly the argument from the positive agreement 
between Scripture and profane history, which they 
ignored altogether. The latter mode of treatment 
appeared to him at once the more convincing to young 
minds, and the more suitable for a set of Lectures. 
For these reasons he adopted it. At the same time 
he has occasionally, both in the Text and in the Notes, 
addressed himself to the more important of the 
reasonings by which the school of Strauss and 
De Wette seek to overthrow the historical authority 
of the Sacred documents. 

The Notes have run to a somewhat unusual length. 
The author thought it important to exhibit (where 
possible) the authorities for his statements in full ; 
and to collect into a single volume the chief testimo- 
nies to the historical truth and accuracy of the Scrip- 
ture records. If, in referring to the cuneiform 
writings, he has on many occasions stated their 
substance rather than cited their exact words, it is 
because so few of them have as yet been translated 
by competent scholars, and because in most cases his 
own knowledge is limited to an acquaintance with 
the substance, derived from frequent conversations 
with his gifted brother. It is to be hoped that no long 
time will elapse before some one of the four savans 
who have proved their capacity to render the ancient 
Assyrian 15 , will present the world with a complete 



b See the Inscription of Tiglath- 
Pileser I., king of Assyria, b. c. 
as translated by Sir Henry 



1150, 

Rawlinson, 



Fox Talbot, Esq., Dr. 



Hincks, and Dr. Oppert; published by 
the Royal Asiatic Society, London. 
Parker, 1857. 



vi li PREFACE. 

translation of all the historical inscriptions hitherto 
recovered. 

The author cannot conclude without expressing his 
acknowledgements to Dr. Bandinel, Chief Librarian of 
the Bodleian, for kind exertions in procuring at his 
instance various foreign works ; and to Dr. Pusey, 
Professor Stanley, and Mr. Mansel, for some valuable 
information on several points connected with the 
Lectures. He is bound also to record his obligations 
to various living or recent writers, whose works have 
made his task easier, as Professors Keil, Havernick, 
and Olshausen in Germany, and in England Dr. 
Lardner, Dr. Burton, and Dean Alford. Finally, he 
is glad once more to avow his deep obligations to the 
learning and genius of his brother, and to the kind 
and liberal communication on his part of full infor- 
mation upon every point where there seemed to be 
any contact between the sacred history and the cunei- 
form records. The novelty of the Lectures will, he 
feels, consist chiefly, if not solely, in the exhibition of 
these points of contact and agreement : and the cir- 
cumstance of his having this novelty to offer was his 
chief inducement to attempt a work on the subject. 
It is his earnest prayer that, by the blessing of God, 
his labours may tend to check the spread of unbelief, 
and to produce among Scripture students a more 
lively appreciation of the reality of those facts which 
are put before us in the Bible. 

Oxford, 
November 2, 1859. 



( K ) 



CONTENTS 



LECTURE I. 

Historical character of Christianity as contrasted with other 
religions — its contact, thence arising, with historical science — its 
liability to be tried afresh by new tests and criteria, as historic 
science advances. — Recent advance of historical science — rise of 
the new department of Historical Criticism — its birth and growth 
— its results and tendencies. — Application of Historical Criticism 
to Christianity to be expected and even desired — the application 
as made — first, by the mythical school of De Wette and Strauss — 
secondly, by the historical school — Niebuhr himself — Bun sen. — 
Intention of the Lectures, to examine the Sacred Narrative on 
the positive side, by the light of the true principles of historical 
science. — Statement of the principles under the form of four 
Canons. — Corollaries of the Canons — comparative value of 
sources — force of cumulative evidence. — Further Canon which 
some seek to add on the subject of miracles, examined — possi- 
bility of miracles — contrary notion, Atheistic — peculiarities of 
modern Atheism. — Occurrence of miracles proved — creation a 
miracle — counterfeit miracles prove the existence of genuine 
ones. — Rejection of the additional Canon leaves the ground clear 
for the proposed enquiry. — Two kinds of evidence to be 
examined — 1. That of the Sacred Volume itself, considered as 
a mass of documents, and judged by the laws of Historical 
. Criticism — 2. The external evidence, or that contained in mo- 
numents, in the works of profane authors, in established 
customs and observances, and in the contemporary writings 
of believers. — Main purpose of the Lectures, to exhibit the 
external evidence . . . . Page 1. 



x CONTENTS. 

LECTUKE II. 

Two modes of conducting an historical enquiry — the Eetro- 
spective and the Progressive — advantages of each — preference 
assigned to the latter. — Plan of the Lectures — division of the 
Biblical history into five periods. — History of the first period, 
contained in the Pentateuch — question of the genuineness of 
the Pentateuch — argument from the unanimous testimony of 
the Jews — objections answered. — Writing practised at the 
time. — Heathen testimony to the genuineness. — Internal testi- 
mony — difficulties of the opposite theory. — Authenticity of the 
Pentateuch, a consequence of its genuineness — Moses an 
unexceptional witness for the history of the last four books. — 
Authenticity of Genesis — the events, if purely traditional, 
would have passed through but few hands to Moses. — 
Probability that Genesis is founded on documents, some of 
which may have been antediluvian. — External evidence of 
the authenticity — agreement of the narrative with the best 
profane authorities. — Review of the authorities — pre-eminence 
of Berosus and Manetho as historians of ancient times — 
Egyptian and Babylonian monuments — mode in which the 
monuments and histories have to be combined. — Comparison 
of the chronological schemes of Manetho and Berosus with 
the chronology of Scripture. — Account of the Creation in 
Berosus — its harmony with Scripture. — Account given by 
Berosus of the Deluge — similar account of Abydenus — the 
difference between the Scriptural and the profane account 
exaggerated by Mebuhr. — Post-diluvian history of Berosus 
— his account of the tower of Babel, and the confusion of 
tongues. — Ethnological value of the tenth chapter of Genesis. 
— Heathen accounts of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, derived from 
Jewish sources— estimate of their value. — Three points only of 
great public importance in the history from Abraham to the 
death of Moses — two of these confirmed from profane sources. 

Expedition of Chedor-laomer agrees with Berosus, and is 

distinctly confirmed by the Babylonian monuments. — Exodus 
of the Jews related by Manetho. — Historical arguments of 
importance which have been omitted for want of space — 
1. The argument furnished by the conclusions of the historical 
sciences, such as Geology, Physiology, Comparative Philology, 
Ethnology, &c— 2. The argument from the correctness of the 
linguistic, geographic, and ethologic notices in the Pentateuch 

modern discovery is continually adding to this kind of 

evidence— geographical illustration.— Conclusion . . Page 28. 



CONTENTS. xi 



LECTURE III. 



The period of Jewish history from the Exodus to Solomon com- 
prises the extremes of national depression and prosperity. — 
Books of Scripture, containing this portion of the history, are 
for the most part by unknown authors. — Their value not 
diminished by this, being that of State Papers. — Historical 
character of the books, considered severally. — The Book of 
Joshua written by an eye-witness, who possesses records. — 
The Book of Judges based upon similar documents. — The 
Books of Samuel composed probably by writers contemporary 
with the events related, viz. Samuel, Gad, and Nathan. — The 
Books of Kings and Chronicles derived from contemporary 
works written by Prophets. — Commentary on the history 
furnished by the Davidical Psalms. — Confirmation of this 
period of Jewish history from profane sources, during the 
earlier portion of the period, rather negative than positive. — 
Weakness of Egypt and Assyria at the period, appears both 
from the Scripture narrative, and from the monuments. — 
Positive testimony of profane writers to the conquest of 
Canaan by Joshua — Moses of Chorene, Procopius, Suidas. — 
Supposed testimony of Herodotus to the miracle of the sun 
standing still. — Positive testimony to the later portion of the 
period — Syrian war of David described by Nicolas of Damascus 
from the records of his native city. — David's other wars men- 
tioned by Eupolemus. — Connection of Judsea with Phoenicia. — 
Early greatness of Sidon strongly marked in Scripture and 
confirmed by profane writers — Homer, Strabo, Justin. — Hiram 
a true Phoenican royal name. — A prince of this name reigned 
at Tyre contemporaneously with David and Solomon, according 
to the Phoenician historians, Dius and Menander — their accounts 
of the friendly intercourse between Hiram and these Jewish 
monarchs. — Solomon's connection with Egypt — absence of 
Egyptian records at this time — Solomon contemporary with 
Sheshonk or Shishak. — Wealth of Solomon confirmed by 
Eupolemus and Theophilus. — Indirect testimony to the truth 
of this portion of the history — the character of Solomon's 
empire, the plan of his buildings, and the style of their orna- 
mentation, receive abundant illustration from recent discoveries 
in Assyria — the habits of the Phoenicians agree with the de- 
scriptions of Homer, Menander, and others. Incompleteness 
of this sketch. — Summary Page 62. 



xn CONTENTS. 



LECTURE IV. 



Period to be embraced in the Lecture, one of about four centuries, 
from the death of Solomon to the destruction of Jerusalem by 
Nebuchadnezzar — importance of this period. — Documents in 
which the history is delivered. — Kings and Chronicles, com- 
pilations from the State Archives of the two Kingdoms of 
Israel and Judah. — Objection answered. — Kings and Chronicles 
independent, and therefore confirmatory, of each other. The 
history contained in them confirmed by direct and incidental 
notices in the works of contemporary Prophets, Isaiah, 
Jeremiah, Amos, &c. — Confirmation of the history from profane 
sources. — The separate existence of the two kingdoms, noticed 
in the Assyrian Inscriptions. — The conquest of Judsea by 
Sheshonk (Shishak) recorded in the great temple at Carnac. — 
Zerah the Ethiopian probably identical with Osorkon the 
Second. — Eth-baal, the father of Jezebel, identical with the 
Ithobalus of Menander — mention of a great drought in his 
reign. — Power of Benhadad, and nature of the force under his 
command, confirmed by the inscription on the Nirarud Obelisk. 
— Accession of Hazael noticed on the same monument. — Men- 
tion of Jehu. — Interruption in the series of notices, coinciding 
with an absence of documents. — Pul, or Phul (^aXwv), men- 
tioned by Berosus, and probably identified with a monumen- 
tal king, who takes tribute from Samaria. — War of Tiglath- 
Pileser with Samaria and Damascus recorded in an Assyrian 
inscription. — Altar of Ahaz probably a sign of subjection. — 
Shalmaneser's Syrian war mentioned by Menander. — Name of 
Hoshea on an Assyrian inscription probably assigned to him. — 
Capture of Samaria ascribed to Sargon on the monuments — 
Harmony of the narrative with Scripture. — Sargon's capture 
of Ashdod, and successful attack on Egypt. — Settlement of the 
Israelites " in the cities of the Medes." — Expedition of Sen- 
nacherib against Hezekiah — exact agreement of Scripture with 
Sennacherib's inscription. — Murder of Sennacherib related by 
profane writers — Polyhistor, Abydenus. — Escape of the mur- 
derers " into Armenia " noticed by Moses ofChorene. — Succes- 
sion of Esar-haddon confirmed by the monuments. — Indirect 
confirmation of the curious statement that Manasseh was 
brought to him at Babylon. — Identification of So (Seveh), king 
of Egypt, with Sliebek, or Sabaco — of Tirhakah with Tehrah, or 
Taracus— of Nccho with Neku or Nccho — and of Hophra with 



CONTENTS. xin 

Haifra, or Apries.— Battle of Megiddo and calamitous end of 
Apries confirmed by Herodotus. — Eeign of Merodach-Baladan 
at Babylon confirmed by the Inscriptions, Berosus, and 
Ptolemy. — Berosus relates the recovery of Syria and Palestine 
by Nebuchadnezzar, and also his deportation of the Jews and 
and destruction of Jerusalem. — Summary Page 89. 



LECTURE V. 

Fourth period of the Jewish History, the Captivity and Eeturn — 
Daniel the historian of the Captivity. — Genuineness of Daniel 
doubted without sufficient reason. — Authenticity of the narra- 
tive, denied by De Wette and others. — Examination of the 
narrative — the Captivity in accordance with Oriental habits 
— confirmed by Berosus. — The character of Nebuchadnezzar 
as portrayed in Scripture accords with Berosus and Abydenus 
— notice of his prophetic gift by the latter. — The length of his 
reign may be gathered from Scripture, and accords exactly with 
Berosus and the monuments. — Condition of Babylonia not mis- 
represented in Daniel — account of the " wise men" illustrated 
by recent discoveries — "satrapial organisation" of the empire 
possible, but not asserted in Scripture. — Internal harmony of 
Daniel's account. — Mysterious malady of Nebuchadnezzar per- 
haps noticed in an obscure passage of the Standard Inscription. 
— Succession of Evil-merodac confirmed by Berosus — difficulty 
with regard to his character. — Neriglissar identified with 
" Nergal-Sharezer, the Rab-Mag." — Supposed irreconcilable 
difference between Scripture and profane history in the narra- 
tive concerning Belshazzar — Discovery that Nabonadius, during 
the latter part of his reign, associated in the government his 
son, Bil-shar-uzur, and allowed him the royal title. — Bil-shar-uzur 
probably the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. — li Darius the 
Mede" not yet identified. — Capture of Babylon by the Medo- 
Persians during a feast, and transfer of Empire confirmed by 
many writers. — Solution of difficulties. — Chronology of the 
Captivity confirmed from Babylonian sources. — Re-establish- 
ment of the Jews in Palestine related in the books of Ezra and 
Nehemiah — their authenticity generally allowed — no reason 
to doubt their genuineness. — Book of Ezra in part based on 
documents. — Attacks upon the authenticity of Esther — reply 
to them. — Author of Esther uncertain. — The narrative drawn 
from the chronicles kept by the kings of Persia. — Confirmation 



xiv CONTENTS. 

of this portion of the history from profane sources. — Eeligions 
spirit of the Persian kings in keeping with their inscriptions. — 
Succession of the kings correctly given. — Stoppage of the build- 
ing of the temple by the Pseudo-Smerdis, accords with his 
other religious changes. — Eeversal by Darius of his religious 
policy agrees with the Behistun Inscription. — Break in the 
history as recorded by Ezra — book of Esther fills up the gap. — 
The name Ahasuerus, the proper equivalent of Xerxes. — Truth- 
fulness of the portraiture, if Xerxes is intended. — Harmony of 
the history with the facts recorded by the Greeks. — Intimate 
knowledge of Persian manners and customs. — The massacre of 
their enemies by the Jews has a parallel in the Magophonia. 
— Character of Artaxerxes Longimanus — length of his reign 
accords with the statement of Nehemiah. — Summary of the 
whole result, as regards the History of the Old Testament 

Page 123. 

LECTUEE VI. 

Plan of the three remaining Lectures — proposal to regard the 
period covered by the New Testament History as a whole, and 
to consider the evidence under three heads — 1. the internal Evi- 
dence ; 2. the Evidence of Adversaries ; and 3. the Evidence of 
the early Christian converts. 

The Internal Evidence. — Number and separateness of the docu- 
ments. — Doubts raised as to the authorship of the Historical 
Books. — The doubts considered severally. — Weight of the ex- 
ternal testimony to the genuineness of the Gospels and the Acts. 
— Internal evidence to the composition of the Acts, and of 
St. Luke's and St. John's Gospels, by contemporaries. — St. 
Matthew's and St. Mark's Gospels must have been written about 
the same time as St. Luke's. — No reason to doubt in any case 
the composition by the reputed authors. — Our four Gospels a 
providential mercy. — The first three wholy independent of one 
another. — Their substantial agreement as to the facts of our 
Lord's life and ministry, an evidence of great weight. — Failure 
of the attempt of Strauss to establish any real disagreement. — ■ 
The establishment of real discrepancies would still leave the 
writers historical authorities of the first order. — Confirmation 
of the Gospel History from the Acts of the Apostles. — Confir- 
mation of the History of the Acts from the Epistles of St. Paul 
— exhibition of this argument in the Horce Paulino? of Paley — 



CONTENTS. xv 

tho grounds of the argument not exhausted. — raley's argument 
applicable to the Gospels. — Confirmation of the Gospel narra- 
tive from the letters of the Apostles. — Firm belief of the Apostles 
in tho Gospel facts from the first, evidenced in the Acts and the 
Epistles. — Impossibility of the sudden growth of myths in such 
an age and under such circumstances. — The mythic theory de- 
vised in order to make Christianity untrue, without ascribing 
it to imposture — its failure in respect of this object. — No alter- 
native but to accept the statements of the Evangelists and 
Apostles, or to regard them as conscious deceivers. — Unmis- 
takable air of veracity and honesty in the New Testament 
writings. — Conclusion Page 152. 

LECTURE VII. 

The Evidence of Adversaries. — Contrast between the Old and 
New Testament — the former historical — the latter biographical.— 
Consequent scantiness of points of contact between the main 
facts of the New Testament narrative and profane records. — 
Their harmony chiefly seen through the incidental allusions of 
the New Testament writers. — Importance of this evidence. — 
Evidence of heathens to the main facts of Christianity, really 
very considerable. — That it is not more must be regarded as 
the result of a forced and studied reticence. — Reticence of 
Josephus. — Loss of heathen writings of this period, which may 
have contained important direct evidence. — Incidental allusions 
considered under three heads : — (i.) The general condition of 
the countries which were the scene of the history. — Political 
condition of Palestine — numerous complications and anomalies 
— faithfulness of the New Testament notices. — Tone and temper 
of the Jews at the time. — Condition and customs of the Greeks 
and Romans in Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. — Con- 
dition and number of the foreign Jews — oratories — synagogues, 
&c. (ii.) Representations with respect to the civil government 
of the countries. — Names and order of the Roman Emperors — 
Jewish native princes — Roman Procurators of Palestine — 
Roman Proconsuls — supposed " error " of St. Luke with regard 
to the Greek Tetrarch, Lysanias. (iii.) Historical facts, of which 
if true, profane authors might have been expected to make 
mention — Decree of Augustus — taxing of Cyrenius — rebellion 
of Theudas — " uproar " of the Egyptian — famine in the days of 
Claudius, &c— Summary and conclusion Page 178. 



xvi CONTENTS. 



LECTUKE VIII. 

The Evidence of the early converts. — Its abundance and real 
weight. — Early Christians not deficient in education, position, 
or intellect. — Historical witness of the Christian writers — of 
St. Barnabas — of Clemens Eomanus — of Ignatius — of Poly carp 
— of Hernias — of Quadratus — of Justin Martyr — of subsequent 
writers. — Witness of primitive Christian monuments, especially 
of those in the Eoman Catacombs — their genuine character — 
their antiquity. — Proof which they afford of the enormous num- 
bers of the Christians in the first ages. — Proof which they afford 
of the sufferings and frequent martyrdoms of the period. — 
Evidence which they furnish of the historical belief of the time. 
— Weight of this whole testimony — the Greeks and Eomans 
not at this time creduluous — not likely to think little of the 
obligations incurred by professing Christianity — the convert's 
sole stay the hope of the resurrection. — Evidence to the truth 
of Christianity from the continuance of miracles in the Church 
— proof of their continuance. — Testimony of the early Chris- 
tians enhanced by their readiness to suffer for their faith. — 
Conclusion Page 210. 

Notes . . ; . . . . Page 239. 

Additional Note Page 448. 

Specification of Editions quoted, or referred to, in the 

Notes Page 450. 



LECTURES, 



LECTURE I 



Isaiah XLIII. 9. 

Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people he 
assembled : who among them can declare this, and shew 
us former things ? Let them bring forth their witnesses, 
that they may be justified : or let them hear, and say, 
Lt is truth. 

Christianity (including therein the dispensation of 
the Old Testament, which was its first stage) is in 
nothing more distinguished from the other religions 
of the world than in its objective or historical cha- 
racter. The religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt, 
India, Persia, and the East generally, were specula- 
tive systems, which did not even seriously postulate 
an historical basis. If they seemed to do so to some 
extent, if for instance the mythological ideas of the 
Greeks be represented under the form of a mytho- 
logical period, which moreover blends gradually and 
almost imperceptibly with the historical, still in the 
minds of the Greeks themselves the periods were 
separate and distinct, not merely in time but in 
character ; and the objective reality of the scenes and 
events described as belonging to each was not con- 
ceived of as parallel, or even similar, in the two 

B 



* CHEISTIANITY A EELIGION OF PACT. [Lect. I. 

cases (1.) The modern distinction between the legend 
and the myth, properly so called (2), was felt, if not 
formally recognised, by the Greek mind; and the basis 
of fact, which is of the essence of the former, was re- 
garded as absent from the latter, which thus ceased 
altogether to be history. Mahometanism again, and 
the other religious systems which have started with 
an individual, and which so far bear a nearer resem- 
blance to the religions of Moses and of Christ, than 
those that have grown up and been developed gra- 
dually out of .the feeling and imagination of a people, 
are very slightly, if at all, connected with any body 
of important facts, the clue attestation of which and 
their accordance with other known facts might be 
made the subject of critical examination. We may 
concede the truth of the whole story of Mahomet, as 
it was related by his early followers, and this con- 
cession in no sort carries with it even the probable 
truth of the religion (3). But it is otherwise with 
the religion of the Bible. There, whether we look 
to the Old or the New Testament, to the Jewish 
dispensation or to the Christian, we find a scheme of 
doctrine which is bound up with facts ; which depends 
absolutely upon them ; which is null and void without 
them ; and which maybe regarded as for all practical 
purposes established if they are shewn to deserve 
acceptance. 

It is this peculiar feature of Christianity — a feature 
often noticed by its apologists (4) — which brings it 
into such a close relation to historical studies and 
investigations. As a religion of fact, and not merely 



Lect. I.] • LIABILITY TO NEW TESTS. 3 

of opinion, — as one whose chief scene is this world, 
and whose main doctrines are events exhibited openly 
before the eyes of men — as one moreover which, 
instead of affecting a dogmatic form, adopts from 
first to last, with very rare exceptions, the historical 
shape, it comes necessarily within the sphere of the 
historical enquirer, and challenges him to investigate 
it according to what he regards as the principles of 
his science. Moreover, as Christianity is in point of 
fact connected intimately with certain records, and 
as those records extend over a period of several 
thousands of years, and " profess to contain a kind of 
abridgment of the history of the world" (5), its 
points of contact with profane history are (practically 
speaking) infinite ; and it becomes impossible for the 
historical enquirer to avoid the question, in -what 
light he is to view the documents which, if authentic, 
must exercise so important an influence over his 
studies and conclusions. 

Christianity then cannot complain if, from time to 
time, as historical science advances, the question is 
raised afresh concerning the real character of those 
events which form its basis, and the real value of 
those documents on w T hich it relies. As an historical 
religion, it invites this species of enquiry, and is glad 
that it should be made and repeated. It only com- 
plains in one of two cases — when either jxrinciple 
unsound and wrong in themselves, having been 
assumed as proper criteria of historic truth, are 
applied to it for the purpose of disparagement ; or 
when, right principles being assumed, the application 

I! 2 



4 RISE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM. [Lect. I. 

of thein, of which it is the object, is unfair and 
illegitimate. 

It is the latter of these two errors which seems to 
me to be the chief danger of the present day. Time 
was — and that not very long ago — when all the 
relations of ancient authors concerning the old world 
were received with a ready belief ; and an unreasoning 
and uncritical faith accepted with equal satisfaction 
the narrative of the campaigns of Caesar and of the 
doings of Romulus, the account of Alexander's 
marches and of the conquests of Semiramis. We cari 
most of us remember when in this country the whole 
story of regal Rome, and even the legend of the 
Trojan settlement in Latium, were seriously placed 
before boys as history, and discoursed of as unhesi- 
tatingly, and in as dogmatic a tone, as the tale of the 
Catiline conspiracy, or the conquest of Britain. " All 
ancient authors ' were ' at this time, as has been justly 
observed, ' put upon the same footing, and regarded 
as equally credible ;' while ' all parts of an author's 
work were supposed to rest on the same basis (6). A 
blind and indiscriminate faith of a low kind — acqui- 
escence rather than actua] belief— embraced equally 
and impartially the whole range of ancient story, 
setting aside perhaps those prodigies which easily 
detached themselves from the narrative, and were 
understood to be embellishments on a par with mere 
graces of composition. 

But all this is now changed. The last century 
has seen the birth and growth of a new science — the 
science of Historical Criticism. Beginning in France 



Lkct. I.] RESULTS OF CRITICAL INVESTIGATION. 5 

with the labours of Pouilly and Beaufort (7), it 
advanced with rapid strides in Germany under the 
guidance of Niebuhr (8), Otfried Mtiller (9), and 
Bockh (10), and finally, has been introduced and 
naturalised among ourselves by means of the writings 
of our best living historians (11). 

Its results in its own proper and primary field are 
of the most extensive and remarkable character. 
The whole world of profane history has been revolu- 
tionised. By a searching and critical investigation 
of the mass of materials on which that history rested, 
and by the application to it of Canons embodying 
the judgments of a sound discretion upon the value 
of different sorts of evidence, the views of the ancient 
world formerly entertained have been in ten thousand 
points either modified or reversed — a new antiquity 
has been raised up out of the old — while much that 
was unreal in the picture of past times which men 
had formed to themselves has disappeared, consigned 
to that " Limbo large and broad " into which " all 
things transitory and vain " are finally received, a 
fresh revelation has in many cases taken the place of 
the old view, which has dissolved before the wand of 
the critic ; and a firm and strong fabric has arisen 
out of the shattered debris of the fallen systems. 
Thus the results obtained have been both positive 
and negative ; but, it must be confessed, with a 
preponderance of the latter over the former. The 
scepticism in which the science originated has clung 
to it from first to last, and in recent times we have 
seen not only a greater leaning to the destructive 



6 CHRISTIANITY ATTESTED BY SCRUTINY. [Lect. I. 

than to the constructive side, but a tendency to push 
doubt and incredulity beyond due limits, to call in 
question without cause, and to distrust what is suffi- 
ciently established. This tendency has not, however, 
been allowed to pass unrebuked (1 2) ; and viewing 
the science as developed, not in the writings of this 
or that individual, but in the general conclusions in 
which it has issued, we may regard it as having 
done, and as still prepared to do, good service in the 
cause of truth. 

It was not to be expected — nor was it, I think, to 
be wished — that the records of past times contained 
in the Old and New Testament should escape the 
searching ordeal to which all other historical docu- 
ments had been subjected, or remain long, on account 
of their sacred character, unscrutinised by the en- 
quirer. Reverence may possibly gain, but Faith, I 
believe, — real and true Faith- — greatly loses by the 
establishment of a wall of partition between the 
sacred and the profane, and the subtraction of the 
former from the domain of scientific enquiry. As 
truth of one kind cannot possibly be contradictory 
to truth of another, Christianity has nothing to fear 
from scientific investigations ; and any attempt to 
isolate its facts and preserve them from the scrutiny 
which profane history receives must, if successful, 
diminish the fulness of our assent to them — the depth 
and reality of our belief in their actual occurrence. 
It is by the connection of sacred with profane history 
that the facts of the former are most vividly appre- 
hended, and most distinctly felt to be real ; to sever 



Lect. I.] GERMAN BIBLICAL C1UTICISM. 7 

between the two is to make the sacred narrative 
grow dim and shadowy, and to encourage the notion 
that its details are not facts in the common and 
every-day sense of the word. 

When, therefore, upon the general acceptance of 
the principles laid down with respect to profane 
history by Otfried Muller and Niebuhr, theological 
critics in Germany proceeded, as they said, to apply 
the new canons of historical criticism to the Gospels 
and to the historical books of the Old Testament, 
there was no cause for surprise, nor any ground for 
extreme apprehension. There is of course always 
danger when science alone, disjoined from religious 
feeling, undertakes, with its purblind sight and 
limited means of knowing, to examine, weigh, and 
decide matters of the highest import. But there did 
not appear to be in this instance any reason for 
special alarm. The great Master-spirit, he to whom 
the new science owed, if not its existence, yet at any 
rate its advancement and the estimation in which 
it was generally held — had distinctly accepted the 
mass of the Scripture history as authentic, and was a 
sincere and earnest believer (13). It was hoped that 
the enquiry would be made in his spirit, and by 
means of a cautious application of his principles. 
But the fact has unfortunately been otherwise. The 
application of the science of historical criticism to the 
narrative of Scripture has been made in Germany by 
two schools— one certainly far less extravagant than 
the other — but both wanting in sound critical judg- 
ment, as well as in a due reverence for the written 



8 FALSE CRITICISMS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. [Lect. I. 

Word. It will be necessary, in order to make the 
scope of these Lectures clearly intelligible, to give 
an account at some length of the conclusions and 
reasonings of both classes of critics. 

The portion of the Scripture history which was first 
subjected to the application of the new principles was 
the historical part of the Old Testament. It was 
soon declared that a striking parallelism existed be- 
tween this history and the early records of most 
heathen nations (14). The miracles in the narrative 
were compared with the prodigies and divine appear- 
ances related by Herodotus and Livy (15). The chrono- 
logy was said to bear marks, like that of Rome and 
Babylon, of artificial arrangement; the recurrence of 
similar numbers, and especially of round numbers, 
particularly indicating its unhistorical character (16). 
The names of kings, it was observed, were frequently 
so apposite, that the monarchs supposed to have borne 
them must be regarded as fictitious personages (17), 
like Theseus and Numa. Portions of the sacred nar- 
rative were early declared to present every appear- 
ance of being simply myths (18) ; and by degrees it 
was sought to attach to the whole history, from first 
to last, a legendary and unreal character. All objec- 
tions taken by rationalists or infidels to particular 
relations in the sacred books being allowed as valid, 
it was considered a sufficient account of such relations 
to say, that the main source of the entire narrative 
was oral tradition — that it first took a written shape 
many hundreds of years after the supposed date of the 
circumstances narrated, the authors being poets rather 



Lect. I.] FALSE CRITICISMS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 9 

than historians, and bent rather on glorifying their 
native country than on giving a true relation of 
facts — and that in places they had not even confined 
themselves to the exaggeration and embellishment of 
actual occurrences, but had allowed imagination to 
step in and fill up blanks in their annals (19). By 
some, attempts were made to disentangle the small 
element of fact which lay involved in so much romance 
and poetry from the mass in which it was embedded 
(20) ; but the more logical minds rejected this as a 
vain and useless labour, maintaining that no separa- 
tion which was other than arbitrary could be effected ; 
and that the events themselves, together with the 
dress in which they appeared, " constituted a whole 
belonging to the province of poetry and my thus" (21). 
It was argued that by this treatment the sacredness 
and divinity and even the substantial truth of the 
Scriptures was left unassailed (22) > the literal mean- 
ing only being discarded, and an allegorical one sub- 
stituted in its place. Lastly, the name of Origen was 
produced from the primitive and best ages of Christi- 
anity to sanction this system of interpretation, and 
save it from the fatal stigma of entire and absolute 
novelty (23). 

When the historical character of the Old Testament, 
assailed on all sides by clever and eloquent pens, and 
weakly defended by here and there a single hesitating 
apologist, seemed to those who had conducted the 
warfare irretrievably demolished and destroyed (24), 
the New Testament became, after a pause, the object 
of attack to the same school of writers. It was felt, 



10 ELIMINATION OF THE WHOLE NARKATIVE. [Lect. I. 

no doubt, to be a bold thing to characterise as a col- 
lection of myths the writings of an age of general 
enlightenment (25) — nay, even of incredulity and 
scepticism ; and perhaps a lingering regard for what 
so many souls held precious (26), stayed the hands of 
those who nevertheless saw plainly, that the New 
Testament was open to the same method of attack as 
the Old, and that an inexorable logic required that 
both should be received or neither. A pause there- 
fore ensued, but a pause of no long duration. First, 
particular portions of the New Testament narrative, 
as the account of our Lord's infancy (27), and of the 
Temptation (28), were declared to possess equal tokens 
of a mythic origin with those which had been previ- 
ously regarded as fatal to the historical character of 
Old Testament stories, and were consequently singled 
out for rejection. Then, little by little, the same sys- 
tem of explanation was adopted with respect to more 
and more of the narrative (29) ; till at last, in the 
hands of Strauss, the whole came to be resolved into 
pure myth and legend, and the historical Christ being 
annihilated, the world was told to console itself with 
a " Grod-man, eternally incarnate, not an individual, 
but an idea (30) .;" which on examination turns out 
to be no God at all, but mere man — man perfected by 
nineteenth-century enlightenment — dominant over 
nature by the railroad and the telegraph, and over 
himself by the negation of the merely natural and 
sensual life, and the substitution for it of the intel- 
lectual, or (in the nomenclature of the school) the 
spiritual. 



£ect. I.J STEAUSS'S TEACHING VIRTUAL ATHEISM. 11 

" In an individual," says Strauss, " the properties 
which the Church ascribes to Christ contradict them- 
selves, in the idea of the race they perfectly agree. 
Humanity is the union of the two natures — God be- 
come man, the infinite manifesting itself in the finite, 
and the finite spirit remembering its infinitude : it is 
the child of the visible Mother and the invisible 
Father, Nature and Spirit ; it is the worker of miracles, 
in so far as in the course of human history the spirit 
more and more completely subjugates nature, both 
within and around man, until it lies before him as the 
inert matter on which he exercises his active power ; 
it is the sinless existence, for the course of its develop- 
ment is a blameless one ; pollution cleaves to the 
individual only, and does not touch the race or its 
history. It is Humanity that dies, rises, and ascends 
to Heaven, for from the negation of its phenomenal 
life there ever proceeds a higher spiritual life ; from 
the suppression of its mortality as a personal, national, 
and terrestrial spirit, arises its union with the infinite 
spirit of the heavens. By faith in this Christ, especially 
in his death and resurrection, man is justified before 
God ; that is, by the kindling within him of the 
idea of Humanity, the individual man partakes of the 
divinely human life of the species (31)." 

Such are the lengths to which speculation, profes- 
sedly grounding itself on the established principles of 
historical criticism, has proceeded in our day ; and such 
the conclusions recommended to our acceptance by a 
philosophy which calls itself pre-eminently spiritual. 
How such a philosophy differs from Atheism, except 



12 PARTIAL SCEPTICISM OF NIEBUHR. [Lect. I. 

in the use of a religious terminology, which it empties 
of all religious meaning, I confess myself unable to 
perceive. The final issue of the whole seems to be 
simply that position which Aristotle scouted as the 
merest folly — that " man is the highest and most di- 
vine thing in the universe" (32), and that God conse- 
quently is but a name for humanity when perfected. 
More dangerous to faith, because less violent in its 
methods, and less sweeping in the conclusions to which 
it comes, is the moderate rationalism of another school, 
a school which can with some show of reason claim to 
shelter itself under the great name and authority of 
Niebuhr. Notwithstanding the personal faith of 
.Niebuhr, which cannot be doubted, and the strong 
expressions of which he made use against the advocates 
of the mythical theory (33), he was himself upon occa- 
sions betrayed into remarks which involved to a great 
extent their principles, and opened a door to the 
thorough-going scepticism from which he individually 
shrank with horror. Tor instance, in one place 
Niebuhr says, with respect to the book of Esther, " I 
am convinced that this book is not to be regarded as 
historical, and I have not the least hesitation in here 
stating it publicly. Many entertain the same opinion. 
Even the early fathers have tormented themselves 
w r ith it ; and St. Jerome, as he himself clearly indi- 
cates, was in the greatest perplexity through his 
desire to regard it as an historical document. At 
present no one looks upon the book of Judith as his- 
torical, and neither Origen nor St. Jerome did so; 



& 



the same is the case with HJsther ; it is nothing more than a 



[Lect. I. DANGER OF NIEBUHR'S CONCESSION. 13 

poem on the occurrences" (34). The great historical 
critic here (so far as appears, on mere subjective 
grounds — because the details of the narrative did not 
appear to him probable) surrendered to the mythical 
interpreters a book of Scripture — admitted that to be 
" a poem and nothing more" which on the face of it 
bore the appearance of a plain matter-of-fact history — 
put a work which the church has always regarded as 
canonical and authoritative on a par with one which 
was early pronounced apocryphal — not, certainly, 
moved to do so by any defect in the external evidence 
(35), though a vague reference is made to " early 
fathers ; " but on account of internal difficulties, either 
in the story itself, or in the manner of its narration. 
I cannot see that it is possible to distinguish the prin- 
ciple of this surrender from that asserted by the 
mythical school ; or that the principle once admitted, 
any ground can be shewn for limiting its application 
to a single book of Scripture, or indeed to any definite 
number of such books. Let it be once allowed that we 
may declare any part of Scripture which seems to us 
improbable, or which does not approve itself to our 
notions of what revelation should be, " a poem and 
nothing more," and what security is there against 
the extremest conclusions of the mythologists ? One 
book will naturally be surrendered after another 
(36), and the final result will not be distinguishable 
from that at which the school of De Wette and Strauss 
professedly aims — the destruction of all trust in the 
historical veracity of the Scripture narrative. 

The partial scepticism of Niebuhr has always had 



14 RATIONALISTIC FOLLOWERS OF XIEBUHE. [Lect. I. 

followers in Germany — men who are believers, but 
who admit the principles of unbelief— who rationalise, 
but who think to say to the tide of rationalism, 
" Thus far shalt thou go, and no further." I shall not 
detain my hearers with a long array of instances in 
this place. Suffice it to adduce the teaching of a single 
living writer, whose influence is very considerable 
both in Germany and in our own country. On the 
ground that Egypt has a continuous history, com- 
mencing more than 6000 years before the Christian 
era, we "are required to reject the literal interpretation 
of the 6th, 7th, and 8th chapters of Genesis, and to 
believe that the Flood was no more than a great 
catastrophe in Western Asia, which swept away the 
inhabitants of that region, but left Egypt and the 
greater part of the world untouched. Ham, Ave are 
told, is not a person, but the symbolical representative 
of Egypt ; and he is the elder brother, because Egyp- 
tian Hamitism is older than Asiatic Semitism. The 
expression that Canaan is the son of Ham " must be 
interpreted geographically ;" it means, that the Ca- 
naanitic tribes which inhabited historical Canaan came 
from Egypt, where they had previously had their 
abode. Nimrod is said to have been begotten by 
Cush ; but he was no more a Cushite by blood than 
Canaan was an Egyptian ; he is called a Cushite, be- 
cause the people represented by him came from the 
part of Africa called Cush or Ethiopia (which they 
had held as conquerors) back into Asia, and there 
established an empire (37). Again, " the family tree 
of Abraham is an historical representation of the great 



Lect. I.] rationalistic followers of niebuhr. 15 

and lengthened migrations of the primitive Asiatic 
race of man, from the mountains of Armenia and 
Chaldaea, through Mesopotamia, to the north-east 
frontier of Egypt, as far as Amalek and Edom. It 
represents the connection between nations and their 
tribes, not personal connection between father and son, 
and records consequently epochs, not real human pedi- 
grees (38)." The early Scriptures are devoid alto- 
gether of an historical chronology. When the sojourn 
of the children of Israel in Egypt is said to have been 
430 years, of which one-half, or 215 years, was from 
Abraham's going down into Egypt to Jacob's, the 
other from Jacob's going down to the Exodus, the 
number must be regarded as " conventional and im- 
historical (39);" as " connected with the legendary ge- 
nealogies of particular families (40) ;" as formed, in 
fact, artificially by a doubling of the first period; which 
itself only " represents the traditionary accounts of the 
primitive times of Canaan as embodied in a genealogy 
of the three patriarchs (41)," and " cannot possibly 
be worthy of more confidence than the traditions with 
regard to the second period," which are valueless 
(42). Of course the earlier lists of names and calcu- 
lations of years are looked upon with still less favour. 
" The Jewish tradition, in projoortion as its antiquity 
is thrown back, bears on its face less of a chronolo- 
gical character," so that " no light is to be gleaned 
from it" for general purposes (43). Even in the 
comparatively recent times of David and Solomon, 
there is no coherent or reliable chronology, the round 
number 40 being still met with, which is taken to be 



16 HISTORIC AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE. [Lect. I. 

an indubitable sign of arbitrary and artificial arrange- 
ment (44). 

Such are some of the results which have, in fact, 
followed from the examination by historical critics, 
possessed of more or less critical acumen, of those 
sacred records, which are allowed on all hands to be 
entitled to deep respect, and which we in this place 
believe to be, not indeed free from such small errors 
as the carelessness or ignorance of transcribers may 
have produced, but substantially " the Word of God." 
I propose at the present time, in opposition to the 
views which I have sketched, to examine the Sacred 
Narrative on the positive side. Leaving untouched 
the question of the inspiration of Scripture, and its 
consequent title to outweigh all conflicting testimony 
whatever, I propose briefly to review the historical 
evidence for the orthodox belief. My object will be 
to meet the reasoning of the historical sceptics on 
their own ground. I do not indeed undertake to 
consider and answer their minute and multitudinous 
cavils, which would be an endless task, and which is 
moreover unnecessary, as to a great extent the 
cavillers meet and answer one another (45) ; but I 
hope to show, without assuming the inspiration of the 
Bible, that for the great facts of revealed religion, 
the miraculous history of the Jews, and the birth, 
life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, as 
well as for his miracles and those of his apostles, the 
historical evidence which we possess is of an authentic 
and satisfactory character. I shall review this 
evidence in the light and by the laws of the modern 



Lect. L] canons of historic science. 17 

historical criticism, so far as they seem to be esta- 
blished. Those laws appear to me to be sound ; and 
their natural and real bearing is to increase instead 
of diminishing the weight of the Christian evidences. 
It is not from a legitimate and proper application of 
them that faith has suffered, but partly from their 
neglect or misapplication, partly from the intrusion 
among them of a single unproved and irrational 
opinion. 

I am not aware that the laws in question have 
ever been distinctly laid down in a compendious, or 
even in an abstract form. They are assumed through- 
out the writings of our best historians, but they are 
involved in their criticisms rather than directly 
posited as their principles. I believe, however, that 
I shall not misrepresent them if I say, that, viewed 
on their positive side, they consist chiefly of the four 
following Canons : — 

1. When the record which we possess of an event U^ 
is the writing of a contemporary, supposing that he 

is a credible witness, and had means of observing 
the fact to which he testifies, the fact is to be accepted, 
as possessing the first or highest degree of historical 
credibility. Such evidence is on a par with that of 
witnesses in a court of justice, with the drawback, on 
the one hand, that the man who gives it is not sworn 
to speak the truth, and with the advantage on the 
other, that he is less likely than the legal witness to 
to have a personal interest in the matter concerning 
which he testifies (46). 

2. When the event recorded is one which the 

c 



18 CANONS OF HISTOEIC SCIENCE. [Lect. I. 

writer may be reasonably supposed to have obtained 
directly from those who witnessed it, we should 
accept it as probably true, unless it be in itself very 
improbable. Such evidence possesses the second 
degree of historical credibility (47). 

3. When the event recorded is removed considera- 
bly from the age of the recorder of it, and there is 
no reason to believe that he obtained it from a con- 
temporary writing, but the probable source of his 
information was oral tradition ; still, if the event be 
one of great importance and of public notoriety, if it 
affected the national life, or prosperity, — especially 
if it be of a nature to have been at once commemo- 
rated by the establishment of any rite or practice, — ■ 
then it has a claim to belief as probably true, at least 
in its general outline (48). This however is the 
third, and a comparatively low, degree of historical 
credibility. 

4. When the traditions of one race, which, if 
unsupported, would have had but small claim to 
attention, and none to belief, are corroborated by 
the traditions of another, especially if a distant or 
hostile race, the event which has this double testimony 
obtains thereby a high amount of probability, and, 
if not very unlikely in itself, thoroughly deserves 
acceptance (49). The degree of historical credibility 
in this case is not exactly commensurable with that 
in the others, since a new and distinct ground of 
likelihood comes into play. It may be as strong 
as the highest, and it may be almost as weak as 
the lowest, though this is not often the case in 



Lect. I.] COROLLARIES OF THE CANONS. 19 

fact. In a general way we may say that the weight 
of this kind of evidence exceeds that which has been 
called the third degree of historical probability, and 
nearly apjDroaches to the second. 

To these Canons may be added certain corollaries, 
or dependent truths, — with respect to the relative 
value of the materials from which history is ordi- 
narily composed, — important to be borne in mind 
in all enquiries like that on which we are entering. 
Historical materials may be divided into direct and 
indirect — direct, or such as proceed from the agents 
in the occurrences ; indirect, or such as are the 
embodiment of enquiries and researches made by 
persons not themselves engaged in the transactions. 
The former are allowed on all hands to be of primary 
importance. There is indeed a drawback upon their 
value, arising out of the tendency of human vanity 
to exalt self at the expense of truth ; but where the 
moral character of the writer is a security against 
wilful misrepresentation, or where the publicity of 
the events themselves would make misrepresentation 
folly, the very highest degree of credit is to be given 
to direct records. These may be either public in- 
scribed monuments, such as have frequently been 
set up by governments and kings ; state papers, such 
as we hear of in the books of Ezra and Esther (50) ; 
letters, or books. Again, books of this class will be 
either commentaries (or particular histories of events 
in which the authors have taken part) ; autobiogra- 
phies, or accounts which persons have given of their 
own lives up to a certain point ; or memoirs, is* 

c 2 



20 FOKCE OF CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE. [Lect. I. 

accounts which persons have given of those with 
whom they have had some acquaintance. These are 
the best and most authentic sources of history ; and 
we must either be content with them, or regard the 
past as absolutely shrouded from our knowledge by a 
veil which is impenetrable. Indirect records — the 
compilations of diligent enquirers concerning times 
or scenes in which they have themselves had no 
part — are to be placed on a much lower footing ; 
they must be judged by their internal character, by 
their accord with what is otherwise known of the 
times or scenes in question, and by the apparent 
veracity and competency of their composers. They 
often have a high value ; but this value cannot be 
assumed previously to investigation, depending as it 
does almost entirely on the critical judgment of their 
authors, on the materials to which they had access, 
and on the use that they actually made of them. 

The force of cumulative evidence has often been 
noticed. No account of the grounds of historic belief 
would be complete, even in outline, which failed to 
notice its applicability to this field of investigation, 
and its great weight and importance in all cases 
where it has any place. " Probable proofs," says 
Bishop Butler, "by being added, not only increase 
the evidence, but multiply it (51)." When two inde- 
pendent writers witness to the same event, the pro- 
bability of that event is increased, not in an arithme- 
tical but in a geometrical ratio, not by mere addition, 
but by multiplication (52). "By the mouth of two 
or three witnesses," the word to which such witness 



Lect. I.] PSEUDO-CANON OF THE KATIONALISTS. 21 

is borne is " established " a . And the agreement is the 
more valuable if it be — so to speak — incidental and 
casual ; if the two writers are contemporary, and 
their writings not known to one another ; if one only 
alludes to what the other narrates ; if one appears to 
have been an actor, and the other merely a looker-on ; 
if one gives events, and the other the feelings which 
naturally arise out of them : in these cases the con- 
viction which springs up in every candid and unpre- 
judiced mind is absolute ; the element of doubt which 
hangs about all matters of mere belief being reduced 
to such infinitesimal proportions as to be inappre- 
ciable, and so, practically speaking, to disappear 
altogether. 

To the four Canons which have been already enu- 
merated as the criteria of historic truth, modern 
Kationalism would add a fifth, an a priori opinion of 
its own — the admission of which would put a stop at 
once to any such enquiry as that upon which we are 
now entering. " No just perception of the true 
nature of history is possible," we are told, " without 
a perception of the inviolability of the chain of finite 
causes, and of the impossibility of miracles (53).' ? And 
the mythical interpreters insist, that one of the essen- 
tial marks of a mythical narrative, whereby it may 
be clearly distinguished from one which is historical, 
is, its " presenting an account of events which are 
either absolutely or relatively beyond the reach of 
(ordinary) experience^ such as occurrences connected 
with the spiritual world, or its dealing in the super- 

a Deuteronomy xix. 15. 



22 POSSIBILITY OF MIEACLES. [Lect. I. 

natural (54)." Now, if miracles cannot take place, 
an enquiry into the historical evidences of Revealed 
Religion is vain ; for Revelation is itself miraculous, 
and therefore, by the hypothesis, impossible. But 
what are the grounds upon which so stupendous an 
assertion is made, as that God cannot, if He so please, 
suspend the working of those laws by which He 
commonly acts upon matter, and act on special occa- 
sions differently ? Shall we say that He cannot, 
because of His own immutability — because He is a 
being " with whom is no variableness, neither shadow 
of turning " ? b But, if we apply the notion of a Law 
to God at all, it is plain that miraculous interpositions 
on fitting occasions may be as much a regular, fixed, 
and established rule of His government, as the work- 
ing ordinarily by what are called natural laws. Or 
shall we say that all experience and analogy is 
against miracles ? But this is either to judge, from 
our own narrow and limited experience, of the whole 
course of nature, and so to generalise upon most weak 
and insufficient grounds ; or else, if in the phrase 
" all experience " we include the experience of others, 
it is to draw a conclusion directly in the teeth of our 
data : for many persons well worthy of belief have 
declared that they have witnessed and wrought mira- 
cles. Moreover, were it true that all known experi- 
ence was against miracles, this would not even prove 
that they had not happened — much less that they 
are impossible. If they are impossible, it must be 
either from something in the nature of things, or 

b James i. 17. 



Lect. I.] CREATION ITSELF MIRACULOUS. 23 

from something in the nature of God. That the 
immutability of God does not stand in the way of 
miracles has been already shewn ; and I know of no 
other attribute of the Divine Nature which can be 
even supposed to create a difficulty. To most minds 
it will, if I do not greatly mistake, rather appear, 
that the Divine Omnipotence includes in it the power 
of working miracles. And if God created the world, 
He certainly once worked a miracle of the most sur- 
passing greatness. Is there then anything in the 
nature of things to make miracles impossible ? Not 
unless things have an independent existence, and 
work by their own power. If they are in themselves 
nought, if God called them out of nothing, and but 
for His sustaining power they would momentarily 
fall back into nothing ; if it is not they that work, 
but He who works in them and through them ; if 
growth, and change, and motion, and assimilation, 
and decay, are His dealings with matter, as sanctifi- 
cation and enlightenment, and inward comfort, and the 
gift of the clear vision of Him, are His dealings with 
ourselves ; if the Great and First Cause never deserts 
even for a moment the second Causes, but He who 
" upholdeth all things by the word of His power," 
and is " above all and through all," d is also (as Hooker 
says) " the Worker of all in all (55)" — then certainly 
things in themselves cannot oppose any impediment 
to miracles, or do aught but obsequiously follow the 
Divine fiat, be it what it may. The whole difficulty 
with regard to miracles has its roots in a materialistic 

c Hebrews i. 3. d .Epliesians iv. 6. 



21 PECULIARITIES OF MODERN ATHEISM. [Lect. I. 

Atheism, which believes things to have a force in and 
of themselves ; which regards them as self-sustaining, 
if not even as self-caused ; which deems them to 
possess mysterious powers of their own uncontrollable 
by the Divine Will ; which sees in the connexion of 
physical cause and effect, not a sequence, not a law, 
but a necessity ; which, either positing a Divine First 
Cause to bring things into existence, then (like 
Anaxagoras) makes no further use of Him (56) ; or 
does not care to posit any such First Cause at all, but 
is content to refer all things to a " course of nature," 
which it considers eternal and unalterable, and on 
which it lavishes ail the epithets that believers regard 
as appropriate to God, and God only. It is the 
peculiarity of Atheism at the present day that it uses 
a religious nomenclature — it is no longer dry, and 
hard, and cold, all matter of fact and common-sense, 
as was the case in the last century — on the contrary, 
it has become warm in expression, poetic, eloquent, 
glowing, sensuous, imaginative — the c Course of Na- 
ture,' which it has set up in the place of God, is in a 
certain sense deified — -no language is too exalted to 
be applied to it, no admiration too great to be excited 
by it — it is "glorious," and "marvellous," and "su- 
perhuman," and "heavenly," and "spiritual," and 
" divine" — only it is ' It/ not • He,' — a fact or set of 
facts, and not a Person : — and so it can really call 
forth no love, no gratitude, no reverence, no personal 
feeling of any kind — it can claim no willing obedience 
■ — it can inspire no wholesome awe — it is a dead idol 
after all, and its worship is but the old nature worship 



Lect. I.] FICTITIOUS MIEACLES IMPLY THE TRUE. 25 

— man returning in his dotage to the follies which 
beguiled his childhood — losing the Creator in the 
creature, the Workman in the work of his hands. 

It cannot therefore be held on any grounds but 
such as involve a real, though covert Atheism, that 
miracles are impossible, or that a narrative of which 
supernatural occurrences form an essential part is 
therefore devoid of an historic character. Miracles 
are to be viewed as in fact a part of the Divine Eco- 
nomy — a part as essential as any other, though 
coming into play less frequently. It has already 
been observed, that the creation of the world was a 
miracle, or rather a whole array of miracles ; and any 
true historical account of- it must " deal in the super- 
natural." A first man was as great a miracle — may 
we not say a greater miracle, than a raised man ? 
Greater, in as much as to create and unite a body and 
soul is to do more than merely to unite them when 
they have been created. And the occurrence of 
miracles at the beginning of the world established a 
precedent for their subsequent occurrence from time 
to time with greater or less frequency, as God should 
see to be fitting. Again, all history abounds in 
statements that miracles have in fact from time to 
time occurred ; and though we should surrender to 
the sceptic the whole mass of Heathen and Ecclesias- 
tical miracles, which I for one do not hold to be 
necessary (57), yet still fictitious miracles imply the 
existence of true ones, just as hypocrisy implies that 
there is virtue. To reject a narrative therefore, 
simply because it contains miraculous circumstances, 



20 EXTENT OF THE PROPOSED ENQUIRY. [Lect. I. 

is to indulge an irrational prejudice — a prejudice 
which has no foundation either in a priori truths or 
in the philosophy of experience, and which can only 
be consistently held by one who disbelieves in God. 

The rejection of this negative Canon, — which a 
pseudo-critical School has boldly but vainly put for- 
ward for the furtherance of its own views with 
respect to the Christian scheme, but which no histo- 
rian of repute has adopted since the days of Gibbon, 
■ — will enable us to proceed without further delay to 
that which is the special business of these Lectures — 
the examination, by the light of those Canons whose 
truth has been admitted, of the historic evidences of 
Revealed Religion. The actual examination must 
however be reserved for future Lectures. Time will 
not permit of my attempting to do more in the brief 
remainder of the present Discourse than simply to 
point out the chief kinds or branches into which the 
evidence divides itself, and to indicate, somewhat 
more clearly than has as yet been done, the method 
which will be pursued in the examination of it. 

The sacred records themselves are the main proof 
of the events related in them. Waiving the question 
of their inspiration, I propose to view them simply as 
a mass of documents, subject to the laws, and to be 
judged by the principles of historical criticism ; I 
shall briefly discuss their genuineness, where it has 
been called in question, and vindicate their authenti- 
city. Where two or more documents belong to the 
same time, I shall endeavour to exhibit some of their 
most remarkable points of agreement : I shall not, 



Lect. I.] TWO KINDS OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. 27 

however, dwell at much length on this portion of the 
enquiry. It is of pre-eminent importance, but its pre- 
eminence has secured it a large amount of attention 
on the part of Christian writers ; and I cannot hope to 
add much to the labours of those who have preceded 
me in this field. There is, however, a second and 
distinct kind of evidence, which has not (I think) re- 
ceived of late as much consideration as it deserves — ■ 
I mean the external evidence to the truth of the Bible 
records, whether contained in monuments, in the 
works of profane writers, in customs and observances 
now existing or known to have existed, or finally in 
the works of believers nearly contemporary with any 
of the events narrated. The evidence under some of 
these heads has recently received important accessions, 
and fresh light has been thrown in certain cases on 
the character and comparative value of the writers. 
It seems to be time to bid the nations of the earth 
once more "bring forth their witnesses," and "declare" 
and " shew us " what it is which they record of the 
" former things" — that they may at once justify and 
" be justified" — in part directly confirming the Scrip- 
ture narrative, in part silent but not adverse, content 
to " hear, and say, ' It is truth.' ' " Ye are my wit- 
nesses, saith the Lord" — even " the blind people, that 
have eyes ; and the deaf, that have ears " — " Ye are 
my witnesses — and my servant whom I have chosen." 
The testimony of the sacred and the profane is not 
conflicting, but consentient — and the comparison of 
the two will show, not discord, but harmony. 

e Isaiah xliii. 8, 10. 



28 [Lect. II. 



LECTURE II. 



Job VIII. verses 8 to 10. 

Enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to 
the search of their fathers ; {for ive are but of yesterday, 
and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a 
shadow) ; shall not they teach thee, and tell thee, and utter 
words out of their heart f 

In every historical enquiry it is possible to pursue 
our researches in two ways : we may either trace the 
stream of time upwards, and pursue history to its 
earliest source ; or we may reverse the process, and 
beginning at the fountain-head follow down the course 
of events in chronological order to our own day. The 
former is the more philosophical, because the more 
real and genuine method of procedure : it is the course 
which in the original investigation of the subject 
must, in point of fact, have been pursued : the present 
is our standing point, and we necessarily view the 
past from it ; and only know so much of the past as 
we connect, more or less distinctly, with it. But the 
opposite process has certain advantages which cause 
it commonly to be preferred. It is the order of the 
actual occurrence, and therefore has an objective truth 
which the other lacks. It is the simpler and clearer 
of the two, being synthetic and not analytic ; com- 
mencing with little, it proceeds by continual accretion, 
thus adapting itself to our capacities, which cannot 
take in much at once ; and further, it has the advan- 



Lect. II.] FIVE PERIODS OF BIBLICAL HISTORY: 29 

tage of conducting us out of comparative darkness into 
a light, which brightens and broadens as we keep ad- 
vancing, " shining more and more unto the perfect 
day." a Its difficulties and inconveniences are at the 
first outset, when we plunge as it were into a world 
unknown, and seek in the dim twilight of the remote 
past for some sure and solid ground upon which to 
plant our foot. On the whole there is perhaps suffi- 
cient reason for conforming to the ordinary practice, 
and adopting the actual order of the occurrences as 
that of the examination upon which we are entering. 
It will be necessary, however, in order to bring 
within reasonable compass the vast field that offers 
itself to us for investigation, to divide the history 
which is to be reviewed into periods, which may be 
successively considered in their entirety. The division 
which the sacred writings seem to suggest is into HYe 
such periods. The first of these extends from the 
Creation to the death of Moses, being the period of 
which the history is delivered to us in the Penta- 
teuch. The second extends from the death of Moses 
to the accession of Rehoboam, and is treated in Joshua, 
Judges, Ruth, the two Books of Samuel, and some 
portions of the Rooks of Kings and Chronicles, The 
third is the period from the accession of Rehoboam to 
the Captivity of Judah, which is treated of in the re- 
mainder of Kings and Chronicles, together with por- 
tions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, 
Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. The fourth 
extends from the Captivity to the reform of Nehemiah ; 

a Proverbs, iv. 18. 



30 HISTORY OF THE FIRST PERIOD. [Lect. II. 

and its history is contained in Daniel, Ezra, Esther, 
and Neheniiah, and illustrated by Haggai and Zecha- 
riah. The fifth is the period of the life of Christ and 
the preaching and establishment of Christianity, of 
which the history is given in the New Testament. The 
first four periods will form the subject of the present 
and three following Lectures. The fifth period, from 
its superior importance, will require to be treated at 
greater length. Its examination is intended to occupy 
the remainder of the present Course. 

The sacred records of the first period have come 
down to us in the shape of five Books, the first of 
which is introductory, while the remaining four 
present us with the' history of an individual, Moses, 
and of the Jewish people under his guidance. Criti- 
cally speaking, it is of the last importance to know 
by whom the books which contain this history were 
written. Now the ancient, positive, and uniform 
tradition of the Jews assigned the authorship of the 
fivQ books (or Pentateuch), with the exception of the 
last chapter of Deuteronomy, to Moses (1) ; and this 
tradition is prima facie evidence of the fact, such as 
at least throws the burden of proof upon those who 
call it in question. It is an admitted rule of all 
sound criticism, that books are to be regarded as pro- 
ceeding from the writers whose names they bear, 
unless very strong reasons indeed can be adduced to 
the contrary (2). In the present instance, the 
reasons which have been urged are weak and puerile 
in the extreme ; they rest in part on misconceptions 
of the meaning of passages (3), in part, upon inter- 



Lect. II.] PENTATEUCH WRITTEN BY MOSES. 31 

polations into the original text, which are sometimes 
very plain and palpable (4). Mainly however they 
have their source in arbitrary and unproved hypo- 
theses, as that a contemporary writer would not have 
introduced an account of miracles (5) ; that the cul- 
ture indicated by the book is beyond that of the age 
of Moses (6) ; that if Moses had written the book, he 
would not have spoken of himself in the third person 
(7) ; that he would have given a fuller and more 
complete account of his own history (8) • and that he 
would not have applied to himself terms of praise and 
expressions of honour (9). It is enough to observe 
of these objections, that they are such as might 
equally be urged against the genuineness of St. 
Paul's epistles, which is allowed even by Strauss 
(10) — against that of the works of Homer, Chaucer, 
and indeed of all writers in advance of their age — 
against Caesar's Commentaries, and Xenophon's Ex- 
pedition of Cyrus — against the Acts of the Apostles 
(11), and against the Gospel of St. John. St. Paul 
relates contemporary miracles ; Homer and Chaucer 
exhibit a culture and a tone which, but for them, we 
should have supposed unattainable in their age ; 
Caesar and Xenophon write throughout in the third 
person ; St. Luke omits all account of his own doings 
at Philippi ; St. John applies to himself the most 
honourable of all titles — " the disciple whom Jesus 
loved V A priori conceptions of how an author of a 
certain time and country would write, of what he 
would say or not say, or how he would express him- 

b John xiii. 23 ; xix. 26, &c. 



32 AUTHENTICITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. [Lect. II. 

self, are among the weakest of all presumptions, and 
must be regarded as outweighed by a very small 
amount of positive testimony to authorship. More- 
over, for an argument of this sort to have any force 
at all, it is necessary that we should possess, from 
other sources besides the author who is being judged, 
a tolerably complete knowledge of the age to which 
he is assigned, and a fair acquaintance with the 
literature of his period (12). In the case of Moses 
our knowledge of the age is exceedingly limited, 
while of the literature we have scarcely any know- 
ledge at all (13), beyond that which is furnished by 
the sacred records next in succession — the Books of 
Joshua and Judges, and (perhaps) the Book of Job — 
and these are so far from supporting the notion that 
such a work as the Pentateuch could not be produced 
in the age of Moses, that they furnish a very strong 
argument to the contrary. The diction of the Pen- 
tateuch is older than that of Joshua and Judges (14), 
while its ideas are presupposed in those writings (15), 
which may be said to be based upon it, and to require 
it as their antecedent. If then they could be written 
at the time to which they are commonly and (as will 
be hereafter shewn) rightly assigned (16), the Pen- 
tateuch not only may,' but must, be as early as Moses. 
Vague doubts have sometimes been thrown out as 
to the existence of writings at this period (17). The 
evidence of the Mosaic records themselves, if the true 
date of their composition were allowed, would be 
conclusive upon the point ; for they speak of writing 
as a common practice. Waiving this evidence, we 



Lect. II.] CONTEMPORARY RECORDS. 33 

may remark that hieroglyphical inscriptions upon 
stone were known in Egypt at least as early as the 
fourth dynasty, or B.C. 2450 (18), that inscribed 
bricks were common in Babylonia about two centu- 
ries later (19), and that writing upon papyruses, both 
in the hieroglyphic and the hieratic characters, was 
familiar to the Egyptians under the eighteenth and 
nineteenth dynasties (20), which is exactly the time 
to which the Mosaic records would, if genuine, belong. 
It seems certain that Moses, if educated by a daughter 
of one of the Ramesside kings, and therefore " learn- 
ed" (as we are told he was) "in all the wisdom of 
Egypt," would be well acquainted with the Egyptian 
method of writing with ink upon the papyrus ; while 
it is also probable that Abraham, who emigrated not 
earlier than the nineteenth century before our era 
from the great Chaldsean capital, Ur, would have 
brought with him and transmitted to his descendants 
the alphabetic system with which the Chaldseans of 
his day were acquainted (21). There is thus every 
reason to suppose that writing was familiar to the 
Jews when they quitted Egypt ; and the mention of 
it as a common practice in the books of Moses is in 
perfect accordance with what we know of the condi- 
tion of the world at the time from other sources. 

To the unanimous witness of the Jews with respect 
to the authorship of the Pentateuch may be added 
the testimony of a number of heathen writers. He- 
catseus of A.bdera (22), Manetho (23), Lysimachus 
of Alexandria (24), Eirpolemus (25), Tacitus (26), 

c Acts vii. 22. 

D 



34 EXTEENAL TESTIMONY. [Lect. II' 

Juvenal (27), Longinns (28), all ascribe to Moses the 
institution of that code of laws by which the Jews 
were distinguished from other nations ; and the ma- 
jority distinctly (29) note that he committed his laws 
to writing. These authors cover a space extending 
from the time of Alexander, when the Greeks first 
became curious on the subject of Jewish history, to 
that of the emperor Aurelian, when the literature of 
the Jews had been thoroughly sifted by the acute 
and learned Alexandrians. They constitute, not the 
full voice of heathenism on the subject, but only an 
indication of what that voice was. It cannot be 
doubted that if we had the complete works of those 
many other writers to whom Josephus, Clement, and 
Eusebius refer as mentioning Moses (30), we should 
find the amount of heathen evidence on this point 
greatly increased. Moreover, we must bear in mind 
that the witness is unanimous, or all but unanimous 
(31). Nor is it, as an objector might be apt to urge, 
the mere echo of Jewish tradition faintly repeating 
itself from far off lands ; in part at least it rests upon 
a distinct and even hostile authority — that of the 
Egyptians. Manetho certainly, and Lysimachus 
probably, represent Egyptian, and not Jewish, views ; 
and thus the Jewish tradition is confirmed by that of 
the only nation which was sufficiently near and suffi- 
ciently advanced in the Mosaic age to make its testi- 
mony on the point of real importance. 

To the external testimony which has been now 
adduced must be added the internal testimony of the 
work itself, which repeatedly speaks of Moses as 



Lect. II.] INTEKNAL TESTIMONY. 35 

writing the law, and recording the various events 
and occurrences in a book, and as reading from this 
book to the people (32). The modern rationalist 
regards it as a " most unnatural supposition," that 
the Pentateuch was written during the passage of 
the Israelites through the wilderness (33) ; but this is 
what every unprejudiced reader gathers from the 
Pentateuch itself, which tells us that God com- 
manded Moses to " write " the discomfiture of Amalek 
"in a book;" d that Moses " wrote all the words of 
the law," e and took the book of the covenant, and 
read it in the audience of the people " f and " wrote 
the goings out of the people of Israel according to 
their journeys, by the commandment of the Lord ;" s 
and, finally, " made an end of writing the words of 
the law in a book, until they were finished ;" h and 
bade the Levites, who bare the ark of the covenant, 
" take that book of the law, and put it in the side of 
the ark of the covenant of the Lord, that it might be 
there for a witness against the people." * A book 
therefore — a" book of the covenant" — a book out of 
which he could read the whole law (34) — was cer- 
tainly written by Moses ; and this book was deposited 
in the ark of the covenant, and given into the 
special custody of the Levites, who bare it, with the 
stern injunction still ringing in their ears, " Ye shall 
not add unto the word, neither diminish ought from 
it;" j and they were charged " at the end of every 



d Exod. xvii. 14. 
e Ibid. xxiv. 4. 
f Ibid. ver. 7. 
g Numb xxxiii. 2. 



h Deut. xxxi. 24. 
j Ibid. ver. 26. 
J Ibid. iv. 2. 

D 2 



36 DILEMMA OF CAVILLERS. [Lect. II. 

seven years, in the year of release, in the feast of 
tabernacles, to read it before all Israel in their hear- 
ing ;" k and, farther, a command was given, that, 
when the Israelites should have kings, each king 
should " write him a copy of the law in a book, out 
of that which was before the priests the Levites, that 
he might read therein all the days of his life." 1 Un- 
less therefore we admit the Pentateuch to be genuine, 
we must suppose that the book which (according to 
the belief of the Jews) Moses wrote, which was 
placed in the ark of God, over which the Levites 
were to watch with such jealous care, which was to 
be read to the people once in each seven years, and 
which was guarded by awful sanctions from either 
addition to it or diminution from it — we must sup- 
pose, I say, that this book perished ; and that another 
book was substituted in its place — by an unknown 
author — for unknown objects — professing to be the 
work of Moses (for that is allowed) (35), and 
believed to be his work thenceforth, without so much 
as a doubt being breathed on the subject either by 
the nation, its teachers, or even its enemies, for 
many hundreds of years (36). It has often been 
remarked, that the theories of those who assail Chris- 
tianity, make larger demands upon the faith of such 
as embrace them than the Christian scheme itself, 
marvellous as it is in many points. Certainly, few sup- 
positions can be more improbable than that to which 
(as we have seen) those who deny the Pentateuch 
to be genuine must have recourse, when pressed to 

k Dent. xxxi. 10, 11. > Ibid. xvii. 18, 19. 



Lect. II.J MOSES AN UNEXCEPTIONABLE WITNESS. 37 

account for the phenomena. It is not surprising 
that having to assign a time for the introduction of 
the forged volume, they have varied as to the date 
which they suggest by above a thousand years, 
while they also differ from one another in every 
detail with which they venture to clothe the trans- 
action (37). 

I have dwelt the longer upon the genuineness of 
the Pentateuch, because it is admitted, even by the 
extremest sceptics, that the genuineness of the work 
carries with it the authenticity of the narrative, at 
least in all t its main particulars. " It would most 
unquestionably," says Strauss, "be an argument of 
decisive weight in favour of the credibility of the 
Biblical history, could it indeed be shewn that it was 
written by eyewitnesses." " Moses, being the leader 
of the Israelites on their departure from Egypt, 
would undoubtedly give a faithful history of the 
occurrences, unless " (which is not pretended) a he 
designed to deceive." And further, " Moses, if his 
intimate connexion with Deity described in these 
books " (i. e. the last four) " be historically true, was 
likewise eminently qualified, by virtue of such con- 
nexion, to produce a credible history of the earlier 
periods (37 6)." If Moses indeed wrote the account 
which we possess of the Exodus and. of the wanderings 
in the wilderness ; and if, having written it, he 
delivered it to those who knew the events as well as 
he, the conditions, which secure the highest degree 
of historical credibility, so far at least as regards the 
events of the last four books, are obtained. We 



38 MOSES AN HONEST WRITER. [Legt. II. 

have for them the direct witness of a contemporary 
writer — not an actor only, but the leader in the 
transactions which he relates — honest evidently, for 
he records his own sins and defects, and the trans- 
gressions and sufferings of his people ; and honest 
necessarily, for he writes of events which were public 
and known to all — we have a work, which, by the 
laws of historical criticism, is thus for historical pur- 
poses just as reliable as Caesar's Commentaries or 
Xenophon's Retreat of the Ten Thousand — we have 
that rare literary treasure, the autobiography of a 
great man, engaged in events, the head of his nation 
at a most critical period in their annals ; who 
commits to writing as they occur the various events 
and transactions in which he is engaged, wherever 
they have a national or public character (38). "We 
must therefore consider, even setting aside the whole 
idea of inspiration, that we possess in the last four 
books of the Pentateuch as trustworthy an account 
of the Exodus of the Jews, and their subsequent 
wanderings, as we do, in the works of Caesar and 
Xenophon, of the conquest of Britain, or of the 
events which preceded and followed the battle of 
Cunaxa. 

The narrative of Genesis stands undoubtedly on a 
different footing. Our confidence in it must ever rest 
mainly on our conviction of the inspiration of the 
writer. Still, setting that aside, and continuing to 
judge the documents as if they were ordinary histori- 
cal materials, it is to be noted, in the first place, that, 
as Moses was on the mother's side grandson to Levi, 



Lect. II.] AUTHENTICITY OF GENESIS. 39 

he would naturally possess that fair knowledge of the 
time of the first going down into Egypt, and of the 
history of Joseph, which the most sceptical of the his- 
torical critics allow that men have of their own family 
and nation to the days of their grandfathers (39). 
He would thus be as good an historical authority for 
the details of Joseph's story, and for the latter part of 
the life of Jacob, as Herodotus for the reign of Oam- 
byses, or Fabius Pictor for the third Samnite War. 
Again, with respect to the earlier history, it is to be 
borne in mind through how very few hands, accord- 
ing to the numbers in the Hebrew text, this passed to 
Moses (40). Adam, according to the Hebrew origi- 
nal, was for 243 years contemporary with Methuselah, 
who conversed for 100 years with Shem. Shem was 
for 50 years contemporary with Jacob, who probably 
saw Jochebed, Moses' mother. Thus Moses might, by 
mere oral tradition, have obtained the history of Abra- 
ham, and even of the Deluge, at third hand ; and that 
of the Temptation and the Fall, at fifth hand. The 
patriarchal longevity had the effect of reducing cen- 
turies to little more than lustres, so far as the safe 
transmission of historical events was concerned ; for 
this does not depend either upon years or upon gene- 
rations, but upon the number of links in the chain 
through which the transmittal takes place. If it be 
granted, as it seems to be (41), that the great and 
stirring events in a nation's life will, under ordinary 
circumstances, be remembered (apart from all written 
memorials) for the space of 150 years, being handed 
down through five generations ; it must be allowed 



40 THE "DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS." [Lect. II. 

(even on mere human grounds) that the account which 
Moses gives of the Temptation and the Fall is to be 
depended on, if it passed through no more than four 
hands between him and Adam. And the argument 
is of course stronger for the more recent events, since 
they would have passed through fewer hands than the 
earlier (42). 

And this, be it remembered, is on the supposition 
that the sole human source from which Moses com- 
posed the Book of Genesis was oral tradition. But it 
is highly probable that he also made use of docu- 
ments. So much fanciful speculation has been ad- 
vanced, so many vain and baseless theories have been 
built up, in connexion with what is called the " docu- 
ment-hypothesis" concerning Genesis (43), that I 
touch the point with some hesitation, and beg at once 
to be understood as not venturing to dogmatise in a 
matter of such difficulty. But both a priori probabi- 
lity, and the internal evidence, seem to me to favour 
the opinion of Yitringa (44) and Calmet (45), that 
Moses consulted monuments or records of former ages, 
which had descended from the families of the patri- 
archs, and by collecting, arranging, adorning, and, 
where they were deficient, completing them, composed 
his history. What we know of the antiquity of writ- 
ing, both in Egypt and Babylonia (4G), renders it not 
improbable that the art was known and practised soon 
after the Flood, if it was not even (as some have sup- 
posed) a legacy from the antediluvian world (47). 
Abraham can scarcely have failed to bring with him 
into Palestine a knowledge which had certainly been 



Lect. II.] VITKINGA'S THEORY. 41 

possessed by the citizens of Ur for several hundred 
years before he set out on his wanderings. And if it 
be said that the art, though known, might not have 
been applied to historical records in the family of 
Abraham at this early date, — yet at any rate, when 
the Israelites descended into Egypt, and found writing 
in such common use, and historical records so abun- 
dant, as they can be proved to have been in that 
country at that period, it is scarcely conceivable that 
they should not have reduced to a written form the 
traditions of their race, the memory of which their 
residence in a foreign land would be apt to endanger. 
And these probabilities are quite in accordance with 
what appears in the Book of Genesis itself. The great 
fulness with which the history of Joseph is given, 
and the minutice into which it enters, mark it as based 
upon a contemporary, or nearly contemporary bio- 
graphy ; and the same may be said with almost equal 
force of the histories of Jacob, Isaac, and even Abra- 
ham. Further, there are several indications of sepa- 
rate documents in the earlier part of Genesis, as the 
superscriptions or headings of particular portions, the 
change of appellation by which the Almighty is dis- 
tinguished, and the like ; which, if they do not certainly • 
mark different documents, at least naturally suggest 
them. If we then upon these grounds accept Vitringa's 
theory, we elevate considerably what I may call the 
human authority of Genesis. Instead of being the 
embodiment of oral traditions which have passed 
through two, three, four, or perhaps more hands, pre- 
viously to their receiving a written form, the Book of 



42 EVIDENCE OF ANCIENT KECOKDS. [Lect. II. 

Genesis becomes a work based in the main upon con- 
temporary, or nearly contemporary, documents — do- 
cuments of which the venerable antiquity casts all 
other ancient writings into the shade, several of them 
dating probably from times not far removed from the 
Flood, while some may possibly descend to us from 
the antediluvian race. The sanction which the Book 
of Genesis thus obtains is additional, it must be re- 
membered, to what it derives from Moses ; who is still 
the responsible author of the work ; who selected the 
documents, and gave them all the confirmation which 
they could derive from his authority, whether it be 
regarded as divine or human, as that of one " learned" 
in man's " wisdom," m or that of an inspired teacher — 
" a prophet, raised up by God/' n 

Thus far we have been engaged in considering the 
weight which properly attaches to the Pentateuch 
itself, viewed as an historical work produced by a 
certain individual, under certain circumstances, and 
at a certain period. It remains to examine the 
external evidence to the character of the Mosaic nar- 
rative which is furnished by the other ancient records 
in our possession, so far at least as those records have 
a fair claim to be regarded as of any "real historic 
value. 

Eecords possessing even moderate pretensions to 
the character of historic are, for this early period, as 
we should expect beforehand, extremely scanty. I 
cannot reckon in the number either the primitive 
traditions of the Greeks, the curious compilations of 

m Acts vii. 22. n Deut. xviii. 15. 



Lect. II.] FRAGMENTS AND INSCRIPTIONS. 43 

the Armenians (48), the historical poems of the 
Hindoos (49), or the extravagant fables of the Chi- 
nese (50). A dim knowledge of certain great events 
in primeval history — as of the Deluge — may indeed 
be traced in all these quarters (51) ; but the historical 
element to be detected is in every case so small, it is 
so overlaid by fable, and intermixed with what is 
palpably imaginative, that no manner of reliance can 
be placed upon statements merely because they occur 
in these pretended histories,nor have they the slightest 
title to be used as tests whereby to try the authenticity 
of any other narrative. The only trustworthy mate- 
rials that we possess, besides the Pentateuch, for the 
history of the period which it embraces, consist of 
some fragments of Berosus and Manetho, an epitome 
of the early Egyptian history of the latter, a certain 
number of Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions, and, 
two or three valuable papyri. 

If it be asked on what grounds so strong a prefer- 
ence is assigned to these materials, the answer is 
easy. The records selected are those of Egypt and 
Babylon. Now these two countries were, according 
to the most trustworthy accounts, both sacred and 
profane (52) ; the first seats of civilisation: in them 
writing seems to have been practised earlier than else- 
where ; they paid from the first great attention to 
histo-. •;, and possessed, when the Greeks became 
acquainted with them, historical records of an anti- 
quity confessedly greater than that which could be 
claimed for any documents elsewhere. Further, in 
each of these countries, at the moment when, in con- 



44: BEEOSUS AND MANETHO. [Lect. II. 

sequence of Grecian conquest and the infusion of new 
ideas, there was the greatest danger of the records 
perishing or being vitiated, there arose a man — a na- 
tive — thoroughly acquainted with their antiquities, 
and competently skilled in the Greek language, who 
transferred to that tongue, and thus made the com- 
mon property of mankind, what had previously been 
a hidden treasure — the possession of their own priests 
and philosophers only. The value of the histories 
written by Manetho the Sebennyte, and Berosus the 
Chaldaean, had long been suspected by the learned 
(53) ; but it remained for the present age to obtain 
distinct evidence of their fidelity — evidence which 
places them, among the historians of early times, in a 
class by themselves, greatly above even the most 
acute and painstaking of the Greek and Roman com- 
pilers. Herodotus, Ctesias, Alexander Polyhistor, 
Diodorus Siculus, Trogus Pompeius, could at best re- 
ceive at second-hand such representations of Babylo- 
nian and Egyptian history as the natives chose to 
impart to them, and moreover received these repre- 
sentations (for the most part) diluted and distorted by 
passing through the medium of comparatively igno- 
rant interpreters. Manetho and Berosus had free 
access to the national records, and so could draw their 
histories directly from the fountain-head. This ad- 
vantage might, of course, have been forfeited by a 
deficiency on their part of either honesty or diligence ; 
but the recent discoveries in the two countries have 
had the effect of removing all doubt upon either of 
these two heads from the character of both writers. 



Lect. II.] CHBONOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES UNREAL. 45 

The monuments which have been recovered furnish 
the strongest proof alike of the honest intention and 
of the diligence and carefulness of the two historians ; 
who have thus, as profane writers of primeval history, 
a pre-eminence over all others (54). This is perhaps 
the chief value of the documents obtained, which do 
not in themselves furnish a history, or even its frame- 
work, a chronology (55) ; but require an historical 
scheme to be given from without, into which they may 
fit, and wherein each may find its true and proper 
position. 

If we now proceed to compare the Mosaic account 
of the first period of the world's history with that 
outline which may be obtained from Egyptian and 
Babylonian sources, we are struck at first sight with 
what seems an enormous difference in the chrono- 
logy. The sum of the years in Manetho's scheme, as 
it has come down to us in Eusebius, is little short of 
30,000 (56) ; while that in the scheme of Berosus, as 
reported by the same author (57), exceeds 460,000 ! 
But upon a little consideration, the greater part of 
this difficulty vanishes. If we examine the two chro- 
nologies, we shall find that both evidently divide at a 
certain point, above which all is mythic, while below 
all is, or at least may be, historical. Out of the 
30,000 years contained (apparently) in Manetho's 
scheme, nearly 25,000 belong to the time when Grods, 
Demigods, and Spirits, had rule on earth ; and the 
history of Egypt confessedly does not begin till this 
period is concluded, and Menes, the first Egyptian 
King, mounts the throne (58). Similarly, in the 



46 BABYLONIAN AND EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY. [Lect. II. 

chronology of Berosus, there is a sudden transition 
from kings whose reigns are counted by sossi and neri, 
or periods respectively of 60 and 600 years, to mo- 
narchs the average length, of whose reigns very little 
exceeds that found to prevail in ordinary monarchies. 
Omitting in each case what is plainly a mythic com- 
putation, we have in the Babylonian scheme a chro- 
nology which mounts up no higher than 2,458 years 
before Christ, or 800 years after the Deluge (accord- 
ing to the numbers of the Septuagint) ;. while in the 
Egyptian we have at any rate only an excess of about 
2000 years to explain and account for, instead of an 
excess of 27,000. 

And this latter discrepancy becomes insignificant, 
if it does not actually disappear, upon a closer scru- 
tiny. The 5000 years of Manetho's dynastic lists 
were reduced by himself (as we learn from Syncellus) 
to 3555 years (59), doubtless because he was aware 
that his lists contained in some cases contemporary 
dynasties ; in others, contemporary kings in the same 
dynasty, owing to the mention in them of various 
royal personages associated on the throne by the prin- 
cipal monarch. Thus near 1500 years are struck off 
from Manetho's total at a blow ; and the chronolo- 
gical difference between his scheme and that of Scrip- 
ture is reduced to a few hundred years — a discrepancy 
of no great moment, and one which might easily 
arise, either from slight errors of the copyists, or from 
an insufficient allowance being made in Manetho's 
scheme, in respect of either or both of the causes from 
which Egyptian chronology is always liable to be 



Lect. II.] POINTS OF AGREEMENT. 47 

exaggerated. Without taxing Manetho with con- 
scious dishonesty, we may suspect that he was not 
unwilling to exalt the antiquity of his country, if he 
could do so without falsifying his authorities ; and 
from the confusion of the middle or Hyksos period 
of Egyptian history, and the obscurity of the earlier 
times, when there were as yet no monuments, he 
would have had abundant opportunity for chronolo- 
gical exaggeration by merely regarding as consecu- 
tive dynasties all those which were not certainly 
known to have been contemporary. The real dura- 
tion of the Egyptian monarchy depends entirely upon 
the proper arrangement of the dynasties into syn- 
chronous and consecutive- — a point upon which the 
best Egyptologers are still far from agreed. Some 
of the greatest names in this branch of antiquarian 
learning are in favour of a chronology almost as 
moderate as the historic Babylonian ; the accession 
of Menes, according to them, falling about 2690 B.C., 
or more than 600 years after the Septuagint date for 
the Deluge (60). 

The removal of this difficulty opens the way to a 
consideration of the positive points of agreement 
between the Scriptural narrative and that of the 
profane authorities. And here, for the earliest 
times, it is especially Babylon which furnishes an 
account capable of being compared with that of 
Moses. According to Berosus, the world when first 
created was in darkness, and consisted of a fluid 
mass inhabited by monsters of the strangest forms. 
Over the whole dominated a female power called 



48 CREATION DESCRIBED BY BEROSUS. [Lect. II. 

Thalatth, or Sea. Then Belus, wishing to carry on 
the creative work, cleft Thalatth in twain ; and of 
the half of her he made the earth, and of the other 
half the heaven. Hereupon the monsters, who could 
not endure the air and the light, perished. Belus 
upon this, seeing that the earth was desolate jet 
teeming with productive power, cut off his own head, 
and mingling the blood which flowed forth with the 
dust of the ground, formed men, who were thus 
intelligent, as being partakers of the divine wisdom. 
He then made other animals fit to live on the earth : 
he made also the stars, and the sun and moon, and 
the five planets. The first man was Alorus, a Chal- 
dsean, who reigned over mankind for 36,000 years, 
and begat a son, Alaparus, who reigned 10,800 years. 
Then followed in succession eight others, whose 
reigns were of equal or greater length, ending with 
Xisuthrus, under whom the great Deluge took jolace 
(61). The leading facts of this cosmogony and 
antediluvian history are manifestly, and indeed 
confessedly (62), in close agreement with the Hebrew 
records. We have in it the earth at first " without 
form and void," and " darkness upon the face of the 
deep." We have the Creator dividing the watery 
mass and making the two firmaments, that of the 
heaven and that of the earth, first of all; we have 
Light spoken of before the sun and moon ; we have 
their creation, and that of the stars, somewhat late 
in the series of events given ; we have a divine 
element infused into man at his birth, and again we 

Gen. i. 2. 



Lect. II.] DELUGE DESCRIBED BY BEEOSUS. 49 

have liis creation "from the dust of the ground.' 5 p 
Further, between the first man and the Deluge are 
in the scheme of Berosus ten generations, which is 
the exact number between Adam and Noah ; and 
though the duration of human life is in his account 
enormously exaggerated, we may see even in this 
exaggeration a glimpse of the truth, that the lives of 
the Patriarchs were extended far beyond the term 
which has been the limit in later ages. This truth 
seems to have been known to many of the ancients 
(63), and traces of it have even been found among 
the modern Burmans and Chinese (64). 

The account which Berosus gives of the Deluge is 
still more strikingly in accordance with the narrative 
of Scripture. " Xisuthrus," he says, " was warned 
by Saturn in a dream that all mankind would be 
destroyed shortly by a deluge of rain. He was 
bidden to bury in the city of Sippara (or Sepharvaim) 
such written documents as existed ; and then to build 
a huge vessel or ark, in length five furlongs, and 
two furlongs in width, wherein was to be placed good 
store of provisions, together with winged fowl and 
four-footed beasts of the earth ; and in which he was 
himself to embark with his wife and children, and his 
close friends. Xisuthrus did accordingly, and the 
flood came at the time appointed. The ark drifted 
towards Armenia ; and Xisuthrus, on the third day 
after the rain abated, sent out from the ark some 
birds, which, after flying for a while over the illimi- 
table sea of waters, and finding neither food nor a 

p Gen. ii. 7. 



50 



SIMILAR ACCOUNT BY ABYDENUS. [Lect. II. 



spot on which they could settle, returned to him. 
Some days later, Xisuthrus sent out other birds, 
which likewise returned, but with feet covered with 
mud. Sent out a third time, the birds returned no 
more ; and Xisuthrus knew that the earth had reap- 
peared. So he removed some of the covering of the 
ark, and looked, and behold the vessel had grounded 
upon a high mountain, and remained fixed. Then 
he went forth from the ark, with his wife, his daugh- 
ter, and his pilot, and built an altar, and offered 
sacrifice ; after which he suddenly disappeared from 
sight, together with those who had accompanied him. 
They who had remained in the ark, surprised that 
he did not return, sought him ; when they heard his 
voice in the sky, exhorting thern to continue religious, 
and bidding them go back to Babylonia from the 
land of Armenia, where they were, and recover the 
buried documents, and make them once more known 
among men. So they obeyed, and went back to the 
land of Babylon, and built many cities and temples, 
and raised up Babylon from its ruins "(65). 

Such is the account of Berosus ; and a description 
substantially the same is given by Abydenus (66), 
an ancient writer of whom less is known, but whose 
fragments are generally of great value and impor- 
tance. It is plain that we have here a tradition not 
drawn from the Hebrew record, much less the foun- 
dation of that record (666) ; yet coinciding with it 
in the most remarkable way. The Babylonian ver- 
sion is tricked out with a few extravagances, as the 
monstrous size of the vessel, and the translation of 



Lect. II.] HARMONY WITH THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT, 51 

Xisuthrus ; but otherwise it is the Hebrew history 
down to its minutice. The previous warning, the 
divine direction as to the ark and its dimensions, the 
introduction into it of birds and beasts, the threefold 
sending out of the birds, the place of the ark's resting, 
the egress by removal of the covering, the altar 
straightway built, and the sacrifice offered, constitute 
an array of exact coincidences which cannot possibly 
be the result of chance, and of which I see no 
plausible account that can be given except that it is 
the harmony of truth. Nor are these minute coinci- 
dences counterbalanced by the important differences 
which some have seen in the two accounts. It is 
not true to say (as Niebuhr is reported to have said) 
that "the Babylonian tradition differs from the 
Mosaic account by stating that not only Xisuthrus 
and his family, but all pious men, were saved ; and 
also by making the Flood not universal, but only 
partial, and confined to Babylonia" (67). Berosus 
does indeed give Xisuthrus, as companions in the ark, 
not only his wife and children, but a certain number 
of " close friends ;" and thus far he differs from 
Scripture ; but these friends are not represented as 
numerous, much less as "all pious men." And so 
far is he from making the Flood partial, or confining 
it to Babylonia, that his narrative distinctly implies 
the contrary. The warning given to Xisuthrus is 
that " mankind " (tovs avdpwirov?) is about to be de- 
stroyed. The ark drifts to Armenia, and when it is 
there, the birds are sent out, and find " an illimitable 
sea of waters," and no rest for the sole of their feet, 

e 2 



52 BEROSUS' POST-DILUVIAN HISTORY. [Lect. II. 

When at length they no longer return, Xisuthrus 
knows "that land has reappeared," and leaving the 
ark, finds himself "ona mountain in Armenia." It 
is plain that the waters are represented as prevailing 
ahove the tops of the loftiest mountains in Armenia, 
— a height which must have "been seen to involve 
the submersion of all the countries with which the 
Babylonians were acquainted. 

The account which the Chaldaean writer gave of 
the events following the Deluge is reported with 
some disagreement by the different authors through 
whom it has come down to us. Josephus believed 
that Berosus was in accord with Scripture in regard 
to the generations between the Flood and Abraham, 
which (according to the Jewish historian) he cor- 
rectly estimated at ten (67b). But other writers 
introduce in this place, as coming from Berosus, a 
series of 86 kings, the first and second of whom 
reign for above 2000 years, while the remainder 
reign upon an average 345 years each. We have 
here perhaps a trace of that gradual shortening of 
human life, which the genealogy of Abraham exhi- 
bits to us so clearly in Scripture ; but the numbers 
appear to be artificial (68), and they are unaccom- 
panied by any history. There is reason however to 
believe that Berosus noticed one of the most impor- 
tant events of this period, in terms which very 
strikingly recall the Scripture narrative. Writers, 
whose Babylonian history seems drawn directly from 
him, or from the sources which he used, give the 
following account of the tower of Babel, and the 



Lect. II.] TOWER OF BABEL. 53 

confusion of tongues — " At this time the ancient 
race of men were so puffed up with their strength 
and tallness of stature, that they began to despise 
and contemn the gods ; and laboured to erect that 
very lofty tower, which is now called Babylon, inten- 
ding thereby to scale heaven. But when the building 
approached the sky, behold, the gods called in the aid 
of the winds, and by their help overturned the tower, 
and cast it to the ground. The name of the ruins is 
still called Babel ; because until this time all men had 
used the same speech, but now there was sent upon 
them a confusion of many and diverse tongues " (69). 
At the point which we have now reached, the 
sacred narrative ceases to be general, and becomes 
special or particular. It leaves the history of the 
world, and concentrates itself on an individual 
and his decendants. At the moment of transition, 
however, it throws out, in a chapter of won- 
derful grasp and still more wonderful accuracy, a 
sketch of the nations of the earth, their ethnic 
affinities, and to some extent their geographical posi- 
tion and boundaries. The Toldoth Beni Noah has 
extorted the admiration of modern ethnologists, who 
continually find in it anticipations of their greatest 
discoveries. For instance, in the very second verse 
the great discovery of Schlegel (TO), which the 
word Indo-European embodies — the affinity of the 
principal nations of Europe with the Arian or Indo- 
Persic stock — is sufficiently indicated by the conjunc- 
tion of the Madai or Medes (whose native name was 
Madd) with Gomer or the Cymry, and Javan or the 



51 ETHNOLOGICAL VALUE OF GENESIS. [Lect. II. 

Ionians. Again, one of the most recent and unex- 
pected results of modern linguistic inquiry is the 
proof which it has furnished of an ethnic connexion 
between the Ethiopians or Cushites, who adjoined on 
Egypt, and the primitive inhabitants of Babylonia ; 
a connexion which (as we saw in the last Lecture) 
was positively denied by an eminent ethnologist 
only a few years ago, but which has now been suffi- 
ciently established from the cuneiform monuments 
(71). In the tenth of Genesis we find this truth 
thus briefly but clearly stated — " And Cush begat 
Nimrod," the "beginning of whose kingdom was 
Babel." q So we have had it recently made evident 
from the same monuments, that " out of that land 
went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh " r — or that 
the Semitic Assyrians proceeded from Babylonia, 
and founded Nineveh long after the Cushite founda- 
tion of Babylon (72). Again, the Hamitic descent 
of the early inhabitants of Canaan, which had often 
been called in question, has recently come to be 
looked upon as almost certain, apart from the evi- 
dence of Scripture (73) ; and the double mention of 
Sheba, both among the sons of Ham, and also 
among those of Shem, 8 has been illustrated by the 
discovery that there are two races of Arabs— one 
(the Joktanian) Semitic, the other (the Himyaric) 
Cushite or Ethiopic (74). On the whole, the scheme 
of ethnic affiliation given in the tenth chapter of 
Genesis is pronounced " safer" to follow than any 

i Gen. x. 8 and 10. r Ibid, verse 11. 8 Ibid, verses 7 and 28. 



Lect. II.] HEATHEN PATRIARCHAL NOTICES. 55 

other ; and the Toldoth Beni Noah commends itself 
to the ethnic enquirer as " the most authentic record 
that we possess for the affiliation of nations," and as 
a document " of the very highest antiquity " (75). 

The confirmation which profane Jiistory lends to 
the Book of Genesis from the point where the narra- 
tive passes from the general to the special character, 
is (as might be expected) only occasional, and for 
the most part incidental. Abraham was scarcely a 
personage of sufficient importance to attract much 
of the attention of either the Babylonian or the 
Egyptian chroniclers. We possess indeed several 
very interesting notices of this Patriach and his suc- 
cessors from heathen pens (76) ; but they are of far 
inferior moment to the authorities hitherto cited, 
since they do not indicate a separate and distinct line 
of information, but are in all probability derived 
from the Hebrew records. I refer particularly to 
the passages which Eusebius produces in his Gospel 
Preparation from Eupolemus, Artapanus, Molo, 
Philo, and Cleodemus, or Malchas, with regard to 
Abraham, and from Demetrius, Theodotus, Artapanus, 
and Philo, with respect to Isaac and Jacob. These 
testimonies are probably well known to many of my 
hearers, since they have been adduced very gene- 
rally by our writers (77). They bear unmistakably 
the stamp of a Jewish origin ; and shew the view 
which the more enlightened heathen took of the 
historical character of the Hebrew records when 
they first became acquainted with them ; but they 
cannot boast, like notices in Berosus and Manetho, a 



56 BABYLONIAN MONUMENTAL KECOEDS. [Lect. II. 

distinct origin, and thus a separate and independent 
authority. I shall therefore content myself with 
this brief mention of them here, which is all that 
time will allow ; and proceed to adduce a few direct 
testimonies to the later narrative, furnished either 
by the native writers, or by the results of modern 
researches. 

There are three points only in this portion of the 
narrative which, beiug of the nature of public and 
important events, might be expected to obtain notice 
in the Babylonian or Egyptian records — the expedi- 
tion of Chedor-laomer with his confederate kings, the 
great famine in the days of Joseph, and the Exodus 
of the Jews. Did we possess the complete monu- 
mental annals of the two countries, or the works 
themselves of Berosus and Manetho, it might fairly 
be demanded of us that we should adduce evidence 
from them of all the three. With the scanty and 
fragmentary remains which are what we actually pos- 
sess, it would not be surprising if we found ourselves 
without a trace of any. In fact, however, we are 
able to produce from our scanty stock a decisive con- 
firmation of two events out of the three. 

The monumental records of Babylonia bear marks 
of an interruption in the line of native kings, about 
the date which from Scripture we should assign to 
Chedor-laomer, and " point to Elymais (or Elam) as 
the country from which the interruption came" (78). 
~\Ye have mention of a king, whose name is on good 
grounds identified with Chedor-laomer (79), as para- 
mount in Babylonia at this time — a king appa- 



Lect. II. J EGYPTIAN NOTICE OF THE EXODUS. 57 

rently of Elamitic origin — and this monarch bears in 
the inscriptions the unusual and significant title of 
Apda Martu, or " Eavager of the West." Our frag- 
ments of Berosus give us no names at this period ; 
but his dynasties exhibit a transition at about the date 
required (80), which is in accordance with the break 
indicated by the monuments. We thus obtain a 
double witness to the remarkable fact of an interrup- 
tion of pure Babylonian supremacy at this time ; and 
from the monuments we are able to pronounce that the 
supremacy was transferred to Elam, and that under a 
king, the Semitic form of whose name would be Che- 
dor-laomer, a greats expedition was organised, which 
proceeded to the distant and then almost unknown 
west, and returned after " ravaging' 5 but not con- 
quering those regions. 

The Exodus of the Jews was an event which could 
scarcely be omitted by Manetho. It was one however 
of such a nature — so entirely repugnant to all the 
feelings of an Egyptian — that we could not expect a 
fair representation of it in their annals. And accord- 
ingly, our fragments of Manetho present us with a 
dsstinct but very distorted notice of the occurrence. 
The Hebrews are represented as leprous and impious 
Egyptians, who under the conduct of a priest of He- 
liopolis, named Moses, rebelled on account of oppres- 
sion, occupied a town called Avaris, or Abaris, and, 
having called in the aid of the people of Jerusalem, 
made themselves masters of Egypt, which they held 
for thirteen years ; but who were at last defeated by 
the Egyptian king, and driven from Egypt into 



58 HIST0RIC0-SCIENT1FIC CONFIKMATIONS. [Lect. II. 

Syria (81). We liave here the oppression, the name 
Moses, the national name, Hebrew, uncled the disguise 
of Abaris, and the true direction of the retreat ; but 
we have all the special circumstances of the occasion 
concealed under a general confession of disaster ; and 
we have a claim to final triumph which consoled the 
wounded vanity of the nation, but which we know to 
have been unfounded. On the whole we have per- 
haps as much as we could reasonably expect the annals 
of the Egyptians to tell us of transactions so little to 
their credit ; and we have a narrative fairly confirm- 
ing the principal facts, as well as very curious in many 
of its particulars (82). 

I have thus briefly considered some of the principal 
of those direct testimonies which can be adduced from 
ancient profane sources, in confirmation of the historic 
truth of the Pentateuch. There are various other 
arguments — some purely, some partly historic — into 
which want of space forbids my entering in the pre- 
sent Course. For instance, there is what may be 
called the historico-scientific argument, derivable from 
the agreement of the sacred narrative with the con- 
clusions reached by those sciences which have a par- 
tially historical character. Geology — whatever may 
be thought of its true bearing upon other points — at 
least witnesses to the recent creation of man, of whom 
there is no trace in any but the latest strata (83). 
Physiology decides in favour of the unity of the 
species, and the probable derivation of the whole hu- 
man race from a single pair (84). Comparative 
Philology, after divers fluctuations, settles into the 



Lect. II.] GEOGRAPHIC CONFIRMATIONS. 59 

belief that languages will ultimately prove to 
have been all derived from a common basis (85). 
Ethnology pronounces that, independently of the 
Scriptural record, we should be led to fix on the plains 
of Shinar as a common centre, or focus, from which 
the various lines of migration and the several types 
of races originally radiated (86). Again, there is an 
argument perhaps more convincing than any other, 
but of immense compass, deducible from the indirect 
and incidental points of agreement between the Mo- 
saic records and the best profane authorities. The 
limits within which I am confined compel me to de- 
cline this portion of the enquiry. Otherwise it might 
be shewn that the linguistic, geographic, and ethnolo- 
gic notices contained in the books of Moses are of the 
most veracious character (87), stamping the whole 
narration with an unmistakable air of authenticity. 
And this, it may be remarked, is an argument to 
which modern research is perpetually adding fresh 
weight. For instance, if we look to the geography, 
we shall find that till within these few years, " Erech, 
and Accad, and Oalneh, in the land of Shinar" 1 — Ca- 
lah and Eesen,'in the country peopled by Asshur u — 
Ellasar, and " Ur of the Chaldees," v were mere names ; 
and beyond the mention of them in Genesis, scarcely 
a trace was discoverable of their existence (88). Ee- 
cently, however, the mounds of Mesopotamia have 
been searched, and bricks and stones buried for near 
three thousand years have found a tongue, and tell us 
exactly where each of these cities stood (89), and suffi- 
1 Gen. x. 10. u Ibid, verses 11 and 1-2. v Ibid. xi. 31 ; xiv. 1. 



60 ETHNOLOGIC CONFIRMATIONS. [Lect. II. 

ciently indicate their importance. Again, the power 
of Og, and his " threescore cities, all fenced with high 
walls, gates, and bars, besides unwalled towns a great 
many," w in such, a country as that to the east of the 
Sea of Galilee, whose old name of Trachonitis indicates 
its barrenness, seemed to many improbable — but mo- 
dern research has found in this very country a vast 
number of walled cities still standing, which shew the 
habits of the ancient people, and prove that the popu- 
lation must at one time have been considerable (90). 
So the careful examination that has been made of the 
valley of the Jordan, which has resulted in a proof 
that it is a unique phenomenon, utterly unlike any- 
thing elsewhere on the whole face of the earth (91), 
tends greatly to confirm the Mosaic account, that it 
became what it now is by a great convulsion ; and by 
pious persons will, I think, be felt as confirming the 
miraculous character of that convulsion. Above all, 
perhaps, the absence of any counter-evidence — the 
fact that each accession to our knowledge of the 
ancient times, whether historic, or geographic, or 
ethnic, helps to remove difficulties, and to produce a 
perpetual supply of fresh illustrations of the Mosaic 
narrative ; while fresh difficulties are not at the same 
time brought to light — is to be remarked, as to candid 
minds an argument for the historic truth of the 
narrative, the force of which can scarcely be over- 
estimated. All tends to shew that we possess in the 
Pentateuch, not only the most authentic account of 
ancient times that has come down to us, but a history 

w Deut. iii. 5. 



Lect. II.] CONCLUSION. 61 

absolutely and in every respect true. All tends to 
assure us that in this marvellous volume we have no 
old wives' tales, no " cunningly devised fable ;" x but 
a "treasure of wisdom and knowledge" 7 — as im- 
portant to the historical enquirer as to the theolo- 
gian. There may be obscurities — there may be occa- 
sionally, in names and numbers, accidental corrup- 
tions of the text — there may be a few interpolations — 
glosses which have crept in from the margin ; but 
upon the whole it must be pronounced that we have 
in the Pentateuch a genuine and authentic work, and 
one which — even were it not inspired — would be, for 
the times and countries whereof it treats, the leading 
and paramount authority. It is (let us be assured) 
" Moses," who is still " read in the synagogues every 
sabbath day ;" z and they who " resist " him, by im- 
pugning his veracity, like Jannes and Jambres of 
old, "resist the truth"* 

x 2 Pet. i. 16. y Col. ii. 3. z Acts xv. 21. 

a 2 Tim. iii. 8. 



62 [Lect. III. 

LECTUKE III. 



Acts XIII. 19-21. 

When he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, 
he divided their land to them by lot. And after that he 
gave them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty 
years, until Samuel the prophet. And afterward they 
desired a king. 

The period of Jewish history, which has to be con- 
sidered in the present Lecture, contains within it the 
extremes of obscurity and splendour, of the depression 
and the exaltation of the race. The fugitives from 
Egypt, who by divine aid effected a lodgment in the 
land of Canaan, under their great leader, Joshua, were 
engaged for some hundreds of years in a perpetual 
struggle for existence with the petty tribes among 
whom they had intruded themselves, and seemed 
finally on the point of succumbing and ceasing alto- 
gether to be a people, when they were suddenly 
lifted up by the hand of God, and carried rapidly to 
the highest pitch of greatness whereto they ever at- 
tained. From the time when the Hebrews " hid 
themselves in holes,' ,a for fear of the Philistines, and 
were without spears, or swords, or armourers, because 
the Philistines had said, " Lest the Hebrews make 
themselves swords or spears," b to the full completion 
of the kingdom of David by his victories over the 
Philistines, the Moabites, the Syrians, the Ammonites, 
and the Amalekites, together with the submission of 
* 1 Sam. xiv. 11. b Ibid. xiii. 19-22. 



Lect. III.] POST-EXODIAN HISTORY. 63 

the Idumaeans, was a space little, if at all, exceeding 
half a century. Thus were brought within the life- 
time of a man the highest glory and the deepest 
shame, oppression and dominion, terror and triumph, 
the peril of extinction and the establishment of a 
mighty empire. The very men who " hid themselves 
in caves and in thickets, in rocks, and in high places, 
and in pits," d or who fled across the Jordan to the 
land of Grad and Grilead, 6 when the Philistines " pitched 
in Michmash," may have seen garrisons put in Da- 
mascus and " throughout all Edom," f and the dominion 
of David extended to the Euphrates. 8 

The history of this remarkable period is delivered 
to us in four or five Books, the authors of which are 
unknown, or at best uncertain. It is thought by 
some that Joshua wrote the book which bears his 
name, except the closing verses of the last chapter (1) ; 
and by others (2), that Samuel composed twenty-four 
chapters of the first of those two books which in our 
Canon bear the title of Books of Samuel ; but there is 
no such uniform tradition (3) in either case as exists 
respecting the authorship of the Pentateuch, nor is 
there the same weight of internal testimony. On the 
whole, the internal testimony seems to be against the 
ascription of the Book of Joshua to the Jewish leader 
(4) ; and both it, Judges, and Ruth, as well as Kings 
and Chronicles, are best referred to the class of /3//5Xm 
aSiairora, or books the authors of which are unknown 

c 2 Sam. viii. e Ibid, verse 7. 

d 1 Sam. xiii. 6. I f 2 Sam. viii. 14, 

g Ibid, verse 3. 



64 AUTHORITY OF STATE EECOEDS. [Lect. III. 

to us. The importance of a history, however, though 
it may be enhanced by our knowledge of the author, 
does not necessarily depend on such knowledge. The 
Turin Papyrus, the Parian Marble, the Saxon Chro- 
nicle, are documents of the very highest historic value, 
though we know nothing of the persons who composed 
them ; because there is reason to believe that they 
were composed from good sources. And so it is with 
these portions of the Sacred Volume. There is abun- 
dant evidence, both internal and external, of their 
authenticity and historic value, noth withstanding that 
their actual composers are unknown or uncertain. 
They have really the force of State Papers, being 
authoritative public documents, preserved among the 
national archives of the Jews so long as they were 
a nation ; and ever since cherished by the scattered 
fragments of the race as among the most precious of 
their early records. As we do not commonly ask who 
was the author of a state paper, but accept it without 
any such formality, so we are bound to act towards 
these writings. They are written near the time, 
sometimes by eyewitnesses, sometimes by those who 
have before them the reports of eyewitnesses; and 
their reception among the sacred records of the Jews 
stamps them with an authentic character. 

As similar attempts have been made to invalidate 
the authority of these books with those to which I 
alluded in the last Lecture, as directed against the 
Pentateuch, it will be necessary to state briefly the 
special grounds, which exist in the case of each, for 
accepting it as containing a true history. Having 



Lect. III.] JOSHUA AN EYE-WITNESS. 65 

thus vindicated the historical character of the Books 
from the evidence which they themselves offer, I 
shall then proceed to adduce such confirmation of 
their truth as can be obtained from other, and espe- 
cially from profane, sources. 

The Book of Joshua is clearly the production of an 
eyewitness. The writer includes himself among 
those who passed over Jordan dry shod. h He speaks 
of Eahab the harlot as still " dwelling in Israel " 
when he writes ;* and of Hebron as still in the pos- 
session of Caleb the son of Jephunneh. j He belongs 
clearly to the " elders that outlived Joshua, which 
had known all the works of the Lord that he had 
done for Israel ;" k and is therefore as credible a wit- 
ness for the events of the settlement in Palestine, as 
Moses for those of the Exodus and the passage 
through the wilderness. Further, he undoubtedly 
possesses documents of authority, from one of which 
(the Book of Jasher) he quotes ; l and it is a reason- 
able supposition that his work is to a great extent 
composed from such documents, to which there are 
several references^ besides the actual quotation (5). 

The Book of Judges, according to the tradition of 
the Jews, was written by Samuel (6). There is 
nothing in the work itself that very distinctly marks 
the date of its composition. From its contents we 
can only say that it must have been composed about 
Samuel's time; that is, after the death of Samson, 
and before the capture of Jerusalem by David (7). 



h Josh. v. 1. 
1 Ibid. vi. 25. 
j Ibid. xiv. 14. 



k Ibid. xxiv. 31. 
1 Ibid. x. 13. 
m Ibid, xviii. 9 ; xxiv. 20. 
F 



66 'JUDGES' BASED ON DOCUMENTS. [Lect. III. 

As the events related in it certainly cover a space of 
some hundreds of years, the writer, whoever he be, 
cannot be regarded as a contemporary witness for 
more than a small portion of them. He stands 
rather in the position of Moses with respect to the 
greater part of Genesis, being the recorder of his 
country's traditions during a space generally estima- 
ted as about equal to that which intervened between 
the call of Abraham and the birth of Moses (8). 
Had these traditions been handed down entirely by 
oral communication, still, being chiefly marked and 
striking events in the national life, they would have 
possessed a fair title to acceptance. As the case 
actually stands, however, there is every reason to 
believe that national records, which (as we have seen) 
existed in the days of Moses and Joshua, were con- 
tinued by their successors, and that these formed the 
materials from which the Book of Judges was com_ 
posed by its author. Of such records we have a 
specimen in the Song of Deborah and Barak, an 
historical poem embodying the chief facts of Debo- 
rah's judgeship. It is reasonable to suppose ■ that 
there may have been many such compositions, 
belonging to the actual time of the events, of which 
the historian could make use ; and it is also most 
probable that chronicles were kept even at this early 
date, like those to which the writers of the later 
historical books refer so constantly. 11 

The two Books of Samuel are thought by some to 

n 1 Kings xi. 41 ; xiv. 19 
and 29 ; xv. 7 ; xvi. 5, 14, 20, 
27, &c. ; 1 Chron. xxvii. 24 ; 



2 Chron. xii. 15; xiii. 22 j 
xx. 34, &c. 



Lect. III.] BOOKS OF SAMUEL PRIMARY. 67 

form, together with the two Books of Kings, a single 
work, and are referred to the time of the Babylonish 
captivity (9) ; but this view is contrary both to the 
internal and to the external evidence. The tradition 
of the Jews is, that the work was commenced by 
Samuel, continued by Gad, David's seer, and con- 
cluded by Nathan the prophet (1 0) ; and this is — to 
say the least — a very probable supposition. We 
know from a statement in the First Book of Chroni- 
cles, that " the acts of David the king,^r<s^ and last, 
were written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in 
the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of 
Grad the seer ; ° and these writings, it is plain, were 
still extant in the Chronicler's time. If then the 
Books of Samuel had been a compilation made during 
the Captivity, or earlier, it would have been founded 
on these books, which could not but have been of 
primary authority ; in which case the compiler could 
scarcely have failed to quote them, either by name, 
as the Chronicler does in the place which has been 
cited, or under the title of " the Chronicles of David," 
as he seems to do in another. 5 But there is no 
quotation, direct or indirect, no trace of compilation, 
no indication of a writer drawing from other authors, 
in the two Books of Samuel, from beginning to end. 
In this respect they contrast most strongly with both 
Chronicles and Kings, where the authors at every 
turn make reference to the sources from which they 
derive their information. These books therefore are 
most reasonably to be regarded as a primary and 

1 Cliron. xxix. 29. v 1 Chron. xxvii. 24. 

F 2 



68 'KINGS/ CONTEMPORARY COMPILATIONS. [Lect. III. 

original work — the work used and quoted by the 
Chronicler for the reign of David — and a specimen 
of those other works from which the authors of Kings 
and Chronicles confessedly compiled their histories. 
We have thus in all probability, for the times of 
Samuel, Saul, and David, the direct witness ' of 
Samuel himself, and of the two prophets who were 
in most repute during the reign of David. 

The writer of the first Book of Kings derives his 
account of Solomon from a document which he calls 
" the Book of the Acts of Solomon ;" q while the 
author of the second Book of Chronicles cites three 
works as furnishing him with materials for this part 
of his history — " the book of Nathan the prophet 
the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions 
of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat." r 
These last were certainly the works of contemporaries 
(11); and the same may be presumed of the other; 
since the later compiler is not likely to have possessed 
better materials than the earlier. We may therefore 
conclude that we have in Kings and Chronicles the 
history of Solomon's reign — not perhaps exactly in 
the words of contemporary writers — but substantially 
as they delivered it. And the writers were persons 
who held the same high position under Solomon, 
which the composers of the Books of Samuel had 
held under Saul and David. 

It is also worthy of remark, that we have the his- 
tories of David and Solomon from two separate and 
distinct authorities. The writer of Chronicles does 
i 1 Kings, xi. 41. T 2 Chron. ix. 29. 



Lect. III.] PAEALLELISM OF THE PSALMS. 69 

not draw even his account of David wholly from 
Samuel, but adds various particulars, which shew 
that he had further sources of information (12). 
And his account of Solomon appears not to have been 
drawn from Kings at all, but to have been taken 
quite independently from the original documents. 

Further, it is to be noted that we have in the Book 
of Psalms, at once a running comment, illustrative 
of David's personal history, the close agreement of 
which with the historical books is striking, and also 
a work affording abundant evidence that the history 
of the nation, as it is delivered to us in the Penta- 
teuch, in Joshua, and in Judges, was at least believed 
by the Jews to be their true and real history in the 
time of David, The seventy-eighth Psalm, which 
certainly belongs to David's time, is sufficient proof 
of this : it contains a sketch of Jewish history, from 
the wonders wrought by Moses in Egypt to the 
establishment of the ark in mount Zion by David, 
and refers to not fewer than fifty or sixty of the 
occurrences which are described at length in the his- 
rical writings (13). It is certain, at the least, that 
the Jews of David's age had no other account to give 
of their past fortunes than that miraculous story 
which has come down to us in the Books of Exo- 
dus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and 
Samuel. 

We have now further to consider what amount 
of confirmation profane history lends to the truth of 
the sacred narrative during the period extending from 
the death of Moses to the accession of Eehoboam, 



70 NEGATIVE HISTOKICAL TESTIMONY. [Lect. III. 

This period, it has been observed above, comprises 
within it the two most opposite conditions of the 
Jewish race : during its earlier portion the Israelites 
were a small and insignificant people, with difficulty 
maintaining themselves in the hill-country of Pales- 
tine against the attacks of various tribes, none of 
whom have made any great figure in history : while 
towards its close a Jewish Empire was formed — an 
Empire perhaps as great as any which up to that 
time had been known in the Eastern world, and 
which, if not so extensive as some that shortly after- 
wards grew up in Western Asia, at any rate marks 
very distinctly the period when the power and pro- 
sperity of the Jews reached its acme. 

It was not to be expected that profane writers 
wourld notice equally both of these periods. During 
the obscure time of the Judges, the Jews could be 
little known beyond their borders ; and even had 
Assyria and Egypt been at this time flourishing and 
aggressive states, had the armies of either or both 
been then in the habit of traversing Palestine in the 
course of their expeditions, the Israelites might easily 
have escaped mention, since they occupied only a 
small part of the country, and that part the least ac- 
cessible of the whole (14). It appears, however, 
that in fact both Assyria and Egypt were weak 
during this period. The expeditions of the former 
were still confined within the Euphrates, or, if they 
crossed it on rare occasions, at any rate went no 
farther than Cappadocia and Upper Syria, or the 
country about Aleppo and Antioch (15). And 



Lect. III.] WEAKNESS OP EGYPT AND ASSYRIA. 71 

Egypt from the • time of Harnesses the third, which 
was not long after the Exodus, to that of Shishak, 
the contemporary of Solomon, seems to have sent no 
expeditions at all beyond its own frontier (16). 
Thus the annals of the two countries are necessarily 
silent concerning the Jews during the period in 
question ; and no agreement between them and the 
Jewish records is possible, except that tacit one 
which is found in fact to exist. The Jewish records 
are silent concerning Egypt, from the Exodus to the 
reign of Solomon ; which is exactly the time during 
which the Egyptian records are silent concerning 
the Jews. And Assyria does not appear in Scrip- 
ture as an influential power in Lower Syria and 
Palestine till a time considerably later than the sepa- 
ration of the kingdoms ; while similarly the Assyrian 
monuments are without any mention of expeditions 
into these parts during the earlier period of the 
empire. Further, it may be remarked that from the 
mention of Chushan-Rishathaim, king of Aram- 
Naharaim (or the country abaut Harran), as a 
powerful prince soon after the death of Joshua, it 
would follow that Assyria had not at that time 
extended her dominion even to the Euphrates ; a 
conclusion which the cuneiform records of perhaps 
two centuries later entirely confirm (17), since they 
shew that even then the Assyrians had not con- 
quered the whole country east of the river. 

Besides the points of agreement here noticed, 
which, though negative, are (I think) of no slight 
weight, we possess one testimony belonging to this 



r 



72 POSITIVE PKOFANE TESTIMONY. [Lect. III. 

period of a direct and positive character, which is 
among the most curious of the illustrations, that 
profane sources furnish, of the veracity of Scrip- 
ture. Moses of Chorene, the Armenian historian 
(18), Procopius, the secretary of Belisarius (19), and 
Suidas the lexicographer (20), relate, that there 
existed in their day at Tingis (or Tangiers), in 
Africa, an ancient inscription to the effect that the 
inhabitants were the descendants of those fugitives 
who were driven from the land of Canaan by Joshua 
the son of Nun, the plunderer. It has been said 
that this story " can scarcely be anything but a Kab- 
binical legend, which Procopius may have heard 
from African Jews (21)." But the independent 
testimony of the three writers, who do not seem to 
have copied from one another, is an argument of 
great weight ; and the expressions used, by Procopius 
especially, have a precision and a circumstantiality, 
which seem rather to imply the basis of personal 
observation. " There stand," he says, " two pillars 
of white marble near the great fountain in the city 
of Tigisis, bearing an inscription in Phoenician cha- 
racters and in the Phoenician language, which runs as 
follows." I cannot see that there would be any suffi- 
cient reason for doubting the truth of this very clear 
and exact statement, even if it stood alone, and were 
unconfirmed by any other writer. Two writers, 
however, confirm it — one of an earlier and the other 
of a later date ; and the three testimonies are proved, 
by their slight variations, to be independent of one 
another. There is then sufficient reason to believe 






Lect. III.] STATEMENT OF HEKODOTUS. 73 

that a Phoenician inscription to the effect stated 
existed at Tangiers in the time of the Lower Empire ; 
and the true question for historical criticism to con- 
sider and determine is, what is the weight and value 
of such an inscription (22). That it was not a Jew- 
ish or a Christian monument is certain from the 
epithet of " plunderer " or " robher " applied in it to 
Joshua. That it was more ancient than Christianity 
seems probable from the language and character in 
which it was written (23). It would appear to have 
been a genuine Phoenician monument, of an anti- 
quity which cannot now be decided, but which was 
probably remote ; and it must be regarded as em- 
bodying an ancient tradition, current in this part of 
Africa in times anterior to Christianity, which very 
remarkably confirms the Hebrew narrative. 

There is another event of a public nature, belonging 
to this portion of the history, of which some have 
thought to find a confirmation in the pages of a pro- 
fane writer. " The Egyptians," says Herodotus (24), 
" declare that since Egypt was a kingdom, the sun 
has on four several occasions moved from his wonted 
course, twice rising where he now sets, and twice set- 
ting where he now rises." It has been supposed (25) 
that we have here a notice of that remarkable time 
when " the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and 
hasted not to go down about a whole day •■" 8 as 
well as of that other somewhat similar occasion, when 
"the sun returned ten degrees" on the dial of 
Ahaz.* But the statement made to Herodotus by 

8 Josh. x. 13. l Is. xxxviii. 8. 



74 PAUCITY OF PKOFANE EECOEDS. [Lect. III. 

the Egyptian priests would very ill describe the phe- 
nomena of these two occasions, however we under- 
stand the narratives in Joshua and Kings ; and the 
fact which they intended to convey to him was pro- 
bably one connected rather with their peculiar system 
of astronomical cycles than with any sudden and vio- 
lent changes in the celestial order. If the narrative 
in Joshua is to be understood astronomically, of an 
actual cessation or retardation of the earth's motion 
(26), we must admit that profane history fails to pre- 
sent us with any mention of an occurrence, which it 
might have been expected to notice with distinctness. 
But at the same time we must remember how scanty 
are the remains which we possess of this early time, 
and how strictly they are limited to the recording of 
political events and dynastic changes. The astrono- 
mical records of the Babylonians have perished ; and 
the lists of Manetho contain but few references to na- 
tural phenomena, which are never introduced except 
when they have a political bearing. No valid objec- 
tion therefore can be brought against the literal truth 
of the narrative in Joshua from the present want of 
any profane confirmation of it. Where the records 
of the past are so few and so slight, the argument 
from mere silence has neither force nor place. 

The flourishing period of Jewish history, which 
commences with the reign of David, brought the cho- 
sen people of God once more into contact with those 
principal nations of the earth, whose history has to 
some extent come down to us. One of the first ex- 
ploits of David was that great defeat which he 



Lect. III.] NICOLAS OF DAMASCUS AND EUPOLEMUS. 75 

inflicted on the Syrians of Damascus, in the vicinity 
of the Euphrates, when they came to the assistance 
of Hadadezer king of Zobah — a defeat which cost 
them more than 20,000 men, and which was followed 
by the temporary subjection of Damascus to the 
Israelites; since " David put garrisons in Syria of 
Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David, 
and brought gifts.'' u This war is mentioned not only 
by Eupolemus (27), who appears to have been well 
acquainted with the Jewish Scriptures, but also by 
Nicolas of Damascus, the friend of Augustus Csesar, 
who clearly draws his history from the records of his 
native place. " After this," says Nicolas, " there was 
a certain Hadad, a native Syrian, who had great 
power : he ruled over Damascus, and all Syria, except 
Phoenicia. He likewise undertook a war with David, 
the king of Judaea, and contended against him in a 
number of battles ; in the last of them all — which was 
by the river Euphrates, and in which he suffered 
defeat — shewing himself a prince of the greatest cou- 
rage and prowess" (28). This is a testimony of the 
same nature with those already adduced from Berosus 
and Manetho ; it is a separate and independent notice 
of an event in Jewish history, which has come down 
to us from the other party in the transaction, with 
particulars not contained in the Jewish account, yet 
compatible with all that is so contained, and strictly 
corroborative of the main circumstances of the He- 
brew narrative. 

The other wars of the son of Jesse were with 

u 2 Sam. viii. 6. Comp. 1 Clir. xviii. 6. 



76 CONNEXION OF JUD^A AND PHCENICIA. [Lect. III. 

enemies of inferior power and importance, as the 
Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Idu- 
ma?ans, and the Amalekites. Eupolemns mentions 
most of these successes (29) ; but otherwise we have 
no recognition of them by profane writers, which 
cannot be considered surprising, since there are no 
ancient histories extant wherein these nations are 
mentioned otherwise than incidentally. We have, 
however, one further point of contact between sacred 
and profane history at this period which is of con- 
siderable interest and importance, and which requires 
separate consideration. I speak of the connexion, 
seen now for the first time, between Judaea and 
Phoenicia, which, separated by natural obstacles (30), 
and hitherto perhaps to some extent by intervening 
tribes, only began to hold relations with each other 
when the conquests of David brought Judaea into a 
new position among the powers of these regions. It 
was necessary for the commerce of Phoenicia that she 
should enjoy the friendship of whatever power com- 
manded the great lines of inland traffic, which ran 
through Coele-Syria and Damascus, by Hamath and 
Tadmor, to the Euphrates (31). Accordingly we find 
that upon the " establishment " and " exaltation " of 
David's kingdom/ overtures were at once made to 
him by the chief Phoenician power of the day ; and 
his goodwill was secured by benefits of the most 
acceptable kind — the loan of skilled artificers and the 
gift of cedar-beams " in abundance " w — after which a 
firm friendship was established between the two 

v 2 Sam. v. 11, 12. w 1 Chr. xxii. 4. 



Lect. III.] CAPITAL OF PHCENICIA VARIABLE. 77 

powers,* which continued beyond the reign of David 
into that of Solomon his son/ Now here it is most 
interesting to see whether the Hebrew writer has 
correctly represented the condition of Phoenicia at the 
time ; whether the name which he has assigned to 
his Phoenician prince is one that Phoenicians bore or 
the contrary ; and finally, whether there is any trace 
of the reign of this particular prince at this time. 

With regard to the first point, it is to be observed 
that the condition of Phoenicia varied at different 
periods. While we seem to trace throughout the 
whole history a constant recognition of some one city 
as "predominant among the various towns, if not as 
sovereign over them, we do not always find the same 
city occupying this position. In the most ancient 
times it is Sidon which claims and exercises this pre- 
cedency and pre-eminence (32) ; in the later times the 
dignity has passed to Tyre, which is thenceforward 
recognised as the leading power. Homer implies 
(33), Strabo (34) and Justin (35) distinctly assert, the 
ancient superiority of Sidon, which was said to have 
been the primitive settlement, whence the remainder 
were derived. On the other hand, Dius (36) and 
Menander (37), who drew their Phoenician histories 
from the native records, clearly show that at a time 
anterior to David, Tyre had become the leading state, 
which she continued to be until the time of Alex- 
ander (38). The notices of Phoenicia in Scripture 
are completely in accordance with what we have thus 
gathered from profane sources. While Sidon alone 

x 1 Kings v. .1. y Ibid, verse 12. 



78 HIRAM A PURELY PHOENICIAN NAME. [Lect. III. 

appears to have been known to Moses, z and Tyre 
occurs in Joshua as a mere stronghold in marked 
contrast with imperial Sidon, ("great Zidon," as she 
is called more than once a ) — whose dominion seems to 
extend along the coast to Carmel (39), and certainly 
reaches inland as far as Laish b — in Samuel and Kings 
the case is changed ; Sidon has no longer a distinctive 
epithet ; c and it is the " king of Tyre" who on behalf 
of his countrymen makes advances to David, and 
who is evidently the chief Phoenician potentate of 
the period. 

Further, when we look to the name borne by this 
prince — the first Phoenician mentioned by name in 
Scripture — we are at once struck with its authentic 
character. That Hiram was really a Phoenician 
name, and one which kings were in the habit of 
bearing, is certain from the Assyrian Inscriptions 
(40) and from Herodotus (41), as well as from the 
Phoenician historians, Dius and Menander. And 
these last-named writers not only confirm the name 
as one which a king of Tyre might have borne, but 
shew moreover that it was actually borne by the 
Tyrian king contemporary with Solomon and David, 
of whom they relate circumstances which completely 
identify him with the monarch who is stated in 
Scripture to have been on such friendly terms with 
those princes. They do not indeed appear to have 
made any mention of David ; but they spoke distinctly 
of the close connexion between Hiram and Solomon : 



Gen. x. 15 ; xlix. 13. 
Josh. xi. 8 ; xix. 28. 



b Judges xviii. 7 and 2S. 
c 2 Sam. xxiv. G. 



Lect. III.] TESTIMOMY OF DIUS AND MENANDER. 79 

adding facts, which, though not contained in Scrip- 
ture, are remarkably in accordance with the sacred 
narrative. For instance, both Menander and Dius 
related that " hard questions" were sent by Solomon 
to Hiram to be resolved by him (42) ; while Dius 
added, that Hiram proposed similar puzzles to Solo- 
mon in return, which that monarch with all his wisdom 
was unable to answer (43). We may see in this nar- 
rative, not only a resemblance to the famous visit of the 
" Queen of the South," d who, " when she heard of the 
fame of Solomon, came to prove him with hard ques- 
tions ;" e but also an illustration of the statement that 
" all the earth sought to Solomon to hear his wisdom, 
which God had put in his heart. " f Again, Menander 
stated that Hiram gave his daughter in marriage to So- 
lomon (44) . This fact is not recorded in Scripture ; 
but still it is illustrative of the statement that " King 
Solomon loved many strange women, together with 
the daughter of Pharoah, women of the Moabites, 
Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites .... 
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses"* One 
of these we may well conceive to have been the 
daughter of the Tyrian king. 

The relations of Solomon with Egypt have received 
at present but little illustration from native Egyp- 
tian sources. Our epitome of Manetho gives us 
nothing but a bare list of names at the period to 
which Solomon must belong ; and the Egyptian 
monuments for the time are particularly scanty and 

d Matt. xii. 42. e 1 Kings x. 1. f Ibid, verse 24. 

« Ibid, xi. 1-3. 



80 SOLOMON'S EGYPTIAN ALLIANCE. [Lect III. 

insignificant (45). Moreover the omission of the 
Jewish writers to place on record the distinctive 
name of the Pharaoh whose daughter Solomon married, 
forbids his satisfactory identification with any special 
Egyptian monarch. Eupolemus indeed professed to 
supply this omission of the older historians (46), and 
enlivened his history with copies of the letters which 
(according to him) passed between Solomon and 
Yaphres or Apries, king of Egypt ; but this name is 
clearly taken from a later portion of Egyptian 
history, and none at all similar to it is found either 
on the monuments or in the dynastic lists for the 
period. The Egyptian marriage of Solomon, there- 
fore, and his friendly connexion with a Pharaoh of 
the 21st dynasty, has at present no confirmation from 
profane sources, beyond that which it derives from 
Eupolemus ; but the change in the relations between 
the two courts towards the close of Solomon's reign, 
which is indicated by the protection extended to his 
enemy Jeroboam by a new king, Shishak, receives 
some illustration and confirmation both from the 
monuments, and from the native historian. Shishak 
makes his appearance at a suitable point, so far as 
chronology is concerned (47), in the lists of Manetho, 
where he is called Sesonchis or Sesonchosis (48) ; 
and his name occurs likewise in the sculptures of 
the period under its Egyptian form of Sheshonk (49). 
The confirmation which the monuments lend to the 
capture of Jerusalem by this king will be considered 
in the next Lecture. At present, we have only to 
note, besides the occurrence of the name at the place 



Lect. III.] INDIRECT POINTS OF AGREEMENT, 81 

where we should naturally look for it in the lists, 
the fact that it occurs at the commencement of a new 
dynasty — a dynasty furnished by a new city, and 
quite of a different character from that preceding it 
—which would therefore be in no way connected 
with Solomon, and would not be unlikely to reverse 
the policy of the house which it had supplanted. 

The wealth and magnificence of Solomon were 
celebrated by Eupolemus (50), and Theophilus (51), 
the former of whom gave an elaborate account of the 
temple and its ornaments. As, however, these 
writers were merely well-informed Greeks, who 
reported to their countrymen the ideas entertained of 
their history by the Jews of the 3rd and 4th century 
B.C., I forbear to dwell upon their testimonies. I 
shall therefore close here the direct confirmations 
from profane sources of this portion of the Scripture 
narrative, and proceed to consider briefly some of the 
indirect points of agreement, with which this part of 
the history, like every other, abounds. 

First then, it may be observed, that the empire 
ascribed to David and Solomon, is an empire of 
exactly that hind which alone Western Asia was 
capable of producing, and did produce, about the 
period in question. The modern system of centra- 
lised organisation by which the various provinces of 
a vast empire are cemented into a compact mass, 
was unknown to the ancient world, and has never 
been practised by Asiatics. The satrapial system of 
government, or that in which the provinces retain 
their individuality but are administered on a common 

G 



82 SUZERAINTY HELD BY SOLOMON. [Lect. III. 

plan by officers appointed by the crown — . which has 
prevailed generally through the East since the time 
of its first introduction — was the invention of Darius 
Hystaspis. Before his time the greatest monarchies 
had a slighter and weaker organisation. They were 
in all cases composed of a number of separate king- 
doms, each under its own native king ; and the sole 
link uniting them together and constituting them an 
empire, was the subjection of these petty monarch s 
to a single suzerain (52). The Babylonian, Assyrian, 
Median, and Lydian, were all empires of this type — 
monarchies, wherein a sovereign prince at the head 
of a powerful kingdom was acknowledged as suzerain 
by a number of inferior princes, each in his own 
right sole ruler of his own country. And the sub- 
jection of the inferior princes consisted chiefly, if not 
solely, in two points ; they were bound to render 
homage to their suzerain, and to pay him annually a 
certain stated tribute. Thus, when we hear that 
" Solomon reigned over all the kingdoms from the 
river (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines 
and unto the border of Egypt " h — or again, that 
"he had dominion over all the region on this 
side the river, from Tiphsah (or Thapsacus on the 
Euphrates) to Azzah (or Gaza, the most southern 
of the Philistine towns), over all the kings on this 
side the river" 1 — and that "they brought presents"* 
— "a rate year by year"* — and " served Solomon 
all the days of his life" 1 , we recognise at once a 

h 1 Kings iv. 21. ' l Ibid, verse 24. j Ibid, verse 21. 

k Ibid. x. 25. » Ibid. iv. 21. 



Lect. III.] ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS. 83 

condition of things with which we are perfectly- 
familiar from profane sources ; and we feel that at 
any rate this account is in entire harmony with the 
political notions and practices of the day. 

Similarly, with respect to the buildings of Solomon, 
it may be remarked, that they appear, from the de- 
cription given of them in Kings and Chronicles, to 
have belonged exactly to that style of architecture 
which we find in fact to have prevailed over Western 
Asia in the earliest times, and of which we have still 
remains on the ancient sites of Nineveh, Susa, and 
Persepolis. The strong resemblance in general 
structure and arrangement of the palace of Esar- 
haddon to that which Solomon constructed for his 
own use, has been noticed by our great Mesopota- 
mian excavator (53) ; and few can fail to see in the 
" house of the forest of Lebanon," 111 with its five-and- 
forty cedar pillars forming the " forest " from which 
the palace derived its name, a resemblance to the 
remarkable structures at Susa and Persepolis, in 
each of which the pillars on which the entire edifice 
rested form a sort of forest, amounting in number to 
72. It is true that in the Persian buildings the 
columns are of stone ; but this is owing to the 
advance of art. The great chambers in the Assyrian 
palaces had no stone columns, but are regarded by 
those who have paid most attention to the subject, 
as having had their roofs supported by pillars of 
cedar (53). Nor does the resemblance of which I 
am speaking consist only in the multiplicity of 

m 1 Kings vii. 2. 

G 2 



84 STYLE OF ORNAMENTATION. [Lect. III. 

columns. The height of the Persepolitan columns, 
which is 44 feet (54), almost exactly equals the " 30 
cubits" of Solomon's house; and there is even an 
agreement in the general character of the capitals, 
which has attracted notice from some who have 
written upon the history of art (56). 

Again, the copious use of gold in ornamentation, 11 
which seems to moderns so improbable (57), was a 
practice known to the Phoenicians, the Assyrians, 
and the Babylonians (58). The brazen pillars, 
Jachin and Boaz, set up in the court of the temple, 
recall the pillar of gold which Hiram, according to 
Menander (59), dedicated in the temple of Baal, and 
the two pillars which* appear in the coins of Cyprus 
before the temple of the Phoenician Yenus (60). 
The " throne of ivory " p has its parallel in the nume- 
rous ivory carvings lately brought from Mesopotamia, 
which in many cases have plainly formed the 
covering of furniture (61). The lions, which stood 
beside the throne, q bring to our mind at once the 
lions' feet with which Assyrian thrones were orna- 
mented (62), and the gigantic sculptured figures 
which commonly formed the portals of the great 
halls. In these and many other points, the state and 
character of art, which the Hebrew writers describe 
as existing in Solomon's time, receives confirmation 
from profane sources, and especially from those 
remains of a time not long subsequent, which have 

n 1 Kings vi. 20, 21, 28, 30, [ ° Ibid. vii. 15-22. 
32, &c. p Ibid. x. 19. 

'• Ibid, verses 19 and 20. 



Lect. III.] PHOENICIAN AETISTIC SKILL. 85 

been recently brought to liglit by the researches 
made in Mesopotamia. 

Once more — the agreement between the character 
of the Phoenicians as drawn in Kings and Chronicles, 
and that which we know from other sources to have 
attached to them, is worthy of remark. The wealth, 
the enterprise, the maritime skill, and the eminence 
in the arts, which were the leading characteristics of 
the Phoenicians in Homer's time, are abundantly 
noted by the writers of Kings and Chronicles ; who 
contrast the comparative ignorance and rudeness of 
their own nation with the science and " cunning" 
of their neighbours. " Thou knowest," writes king 
Solomon to Hiram, " that there is not among us any 
that can skill to hew timber* like the Sidonians." r 
" Send me a man," again he writes, " cunning to 
work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in iron, 
and in purple, and crimson, and blue, and that can 
skill to grave with the cunning men which are witli 
me in Judah and in Jerusalem, whom David my 
father did provide." 8 And the man sent, " a man 
of Tyre, a worker in brass, filled with wisdom, and un- 
derstanding, and cunning to work all works in brass, 
came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work."* 1 
So too when Solomon " made a navy of ships in 
Ezion-geber, on the shore of the Ped Sea," Hiram 
" sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had 
knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon." u 
It has been well remarked (62 b), that " we discover 

r 1 Kings v. 6. B 2 Chron. ii. 7. l 1 Kings vii. 14. 

u Ibid. ix. 26, 27. 



86 StJMMA'KY. [Lect. III. 

the greatness of Tyre in this age, not so much from 
its own annals as from those of the Israelites, its 
neighbours." The scanty fragments of the Phoe- 
nician history which alone, remain to us are filled out 
and illustrated by the more copious records of the 
Jews ; which, with a simplicity and truthfulness that 
we rarely meet with in profane writers, set forth in 
the strongest terms their obligations to their friendly 
neighbours. 

These are a few of the indirect points of agree- 
ment between profane history and this portion of the 
sacred narrative. It would be easy to adduce others 
(63) ; but since, within the space which an occasion 
like the present allows, it is impossible to do more 
than broadly to indicate the sort of evidence which 
is producible in favour of the authenticity of Scrip- 
ture, perhaps the foregoing specimens . may suffice. 
It only remains therefore to sum up briefly the 
results to which we seem to have attained. 

We have been engaged with a dark period — a 
period when the nations of the world had little con- 
verse with one another, when civilisation was but 
beginning, when the knowledge of letters was con- 
fined within narrow bounds, when no country but 
Egypt had a literature, and when Egypt herself was in 
a state of unusual depression, and had little communi- 
cation with nations beyond her borders. We could 
not expect to obtain for such a period any great 
amount of profane illustration. Yet the Jewish 
history of even this obscure time has been found to 
present points of direct agreement with the Egyptian 



Lect. III.J SUMMARY. 87 

records, scanty as they are for it, with the Phoe- 
nician annals, with the traditions of the Syrians of 
Damascus, and with those of the early inhabitants of 
Northern Africa. It has also appeared that the 
Hebrew account of the time is in complete harmony 
with all that we otherwise know of Western Asia at 
the period in question, of its political condition, its 
civilisation, its arts and sciences, its manners and 
customs, its inhabitants. Illustrations of these points 
have been furnished by the Assyrian inscriptions, 
the Assyrian and Persian palaces, the Phoenician 
coins and histories, and the earliest Greek poetry. 
JSTor is it possible to produce from authentic history 
any contradiction of this or any other portion of the 
Hebrew records. When such a contradiction has 
seemed to be found, it has invariably happened that 
in the progress of historical enquiry, the author from 
whom it proceeds has lost credit, and finally come to be 
regarded as an utterly untrustworthy authority (64). 
Internally consistent, externally resting upon contem- 
porary or nearly contemporary documents, and both di- 
rectly and indirectly confirmed by the records of neigh- 
bouring nations, the Hebrew account of this time is 
entitled to be received as a true and authentic history 
on almost every ground upon which such a claim can 
be rested. It was then justly and with sufficient reason 
that the Proto-martyr in his last speech/ and the 
great Apostle of the Gentiles, in his first public 
preaching as an Apostle, w assumed as certain the 
simple, literal, and historic truth of this portion of 
v Acts vii. 45-47. w Ibid. xiii. 19-22. 



88 SUMMARY. [Lect. III. 

the sacred narrative. Through God's good pro- 
vidence, there is no break in that historic chain, 
which binds the present with the past, the new cove- 
nant with the the old, Christ with Moses, the true 
Israel with Abraham. A " dark age" — a time of 
trouble and confusion, undoubtebly supervened upon 
the establishment of the Israelites in Canaan ; but 
amid the gloom the torch of truth still passed from 
hand to hand — prophets arose at intervals — and the 
main events in the national life were carefully put 
on record. Afterwards — from the time of Samuel — 
a more regular system was introduced ; events were 
chronicled as they occurred ; and even the sceptic 
allows that " with the Books of Samuel, the history as- 
sumes an appearance far more authentic than that of 
the contemporary history of any other ancient nation 
(65)." This admission may well be taken to render 
any further argument unnecessary, and with it we 
may properly conclude this portion of our enquiry. 






Lkct. IV. 



S9 



LECTURE IV. 



1 Kings XL 31, 32. 

And Ahijah said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces : for thus 
saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend 
the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten 
tribes to thee : but he shall have one tribe for my servant 
David's sake. 

The subject of the present Lecture will be the his- 
tory of the chosen people from the separation of the 
two kingdoms by the successful revolt of Jeroboam, 
to the completion of the Captivity of Judah, upon 
the destruction of Jerusalem, in the nineteenth year 
of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. The space 
of time embraced is thus a period of about four cen- 
turies. Without pretending to a chronological exac- 
titude, for which our data are insufficient, we may 
lay it down as tolerably certain, that the establish- 
ment of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah on 
the ruins of Solomon's empire is an event belonging 
to the earlier half of the tenth century before our 
era ; while the destruction of Jerusalem may be 
assigned with much confidence to the year B.C. 586. 

These centuries constitute a period second in im- 
portance to none of equal length. They comprise 
the great development, the decadence, and the fall 
of Assyria — the sudden growth of Media and Babylon 
— the Egyptian revival under the Psammetichi — the 
most glorious time of the Phoenician cities — the rise 



90 EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORIC PERIOD. [Lect. IV. 

of Sparta and Athens to pre-eminence in Greece — 
the foundation of Carthage and of Rome — and the 
spread of civilisation by means of the Greek and 
Phoenician colonies, from the Palus Mseotis to the 
Pillars of Hercules. Moreover, they contain within 
them the transition time of most profane history — ■ 
the space within which it passes from the dreamy 
cloud-land of myth and fable into the sober region 
of reality and fact, exchanging poetic fancy for 
prosaic truth, and assuming that character of authen- 
ticity and trustworthiness which is required to fit it 
thoroughly for the purpose whereto it is applied in 
these Lectures. Hence, illustrations of the sacred 
narrative, hitherto somewhat rare and infrequent, 
will now crowd upon us, and make the principal 
difficulty at the present stage that of selection. 
Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Phoenicia, Greece, will vie 
with each other in offering to us proofs that the 
Hebrew records for this time contain a true and 
authentic account of the fortunes of the race ; and 
instead of finding merely a few points here and 
there to illustrate from profane sources, we shall 
now be able to produce confirmatory proof of almost 
every important event in the history. 

Before entering, however, on this branch of the 
enquiry, some consideration must be given to the 
character of the documents in which this portion of 
the history has come down to us, and to the confir- 
mation which those documents obtain from other 
Books in the Sacred Canon. 

It was observed in the last Lecture, that the 



Lect. IV.] NUMEROUS PROPHETICAL RECORDS. 91 

Books of Kings and Chronicles are compilations 
from State Papers preserved in the public archives 
of the Jewish nation (1), the authors of those papers 
•being probably, in most cases, the Prophets in best 
repute at the time of their composition. This is 
particularly apparent from the Second Book of Chro- 
nicles, where the author, besides citing in several 
places a " the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings 
of Israel and Judah," particularises no fewer than 
thirteen works of prophets, some of which he ex- 
pressly states to have formed a portion of the gene- 
ral "Book of the Chronicles," b while most of the 
others may be probably concluded to have done the 
same. The Books of Samuel, of Nathan, and of 
Gad, the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the 
Visions of Iddo the seer, which are among the works 
quoted by the Chronicler, have been already no- 
ticed (2). To these must now be added, "the Book 
of Shemaiah the Prophet," c " the Book of Iddo the 
seer, concerning genealogies," d " the Story or Com- 
mentary of the Prophet Iddo," e " the Book of Jehu 
the son of Hanani," f " the Acts of Uzziah by 
Isaiah," g " the Vision of Isaiah," h and the book of 
"the Sayings of the Seers" 1 — all works which 
served as materials to the Chronicler, and to which 
he refers his readers. We found reason to believe, 



a 2 Chron. xvi. 11 ; xxv. 26 ; 
xxvii. 7 ; xxviii. 26 ; xxxii. 
32 ; xxxiii. 18 ; and xxxv. 
27. 

b Ibid. xx. 34 ; and xxxii. 32. 

c Ibid. xii. 15. 



d Ibid. 

e Ibid xiii. 22. 
f Ibid. xx. 34. 
g Ibid. xxvi. 22. 
h Ibid, xxxii. 32. 
' Ibid, xxxiii. 19. 



92 PROPHETS AS SUCCESSIVE HISTORIANS. [Lect. IV. 

in the last Lecture, that our Book (or Books) of 
Samuel is the very work which the Chronicler 
quotes under the three names of the Book of Samuel, 
the Book of Nathan, and the Book of Gad. Simi- 
larly the Book of the Acts of Solomon j would seem 
to have been composed of a Book of Nathan, a Book 
of Ahijah the Shilonite, and a portion of a Book of 
Iddo the seer. k And the Book, or rather the two 
Books (3), of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel 
and Judah, would appear to have been carried on 
in the same way ; first, by Iddo, in his " Story," or 
" Commentary ;" then by Jehu, the son of Hanani, 
in the Book which we are told was made to form a 
part of the Book of the Kings of Israel (4) ; and 
afterwards by other prophets and seers, among 
whom were certainly Isaiah and Jeremiah. That 
Isaiah wrote the history of the reign of Uzziah is 
expressly stated ; l and it is also said that his account 
of the acts of Hezekiah formed a portion of the Book 
of the kings of Judah (5) ; besides which, the close 
verbal agreement between certain historical chapters 
in Isaiah and in Kings (6), would suffice to prove 
that this part of the state-history was composed by 
him. A similar agreement between portions of 
Kings and of Jeremiah, leads to a similar conclusion 
with respect to that prophet (7). Thus Samuel, 
Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Iddo, Jehu, Isaiah, 
Jeremiah, and other prophets contemporary with 
the events, are to be regarded as the real authorities 
for the Jewish history as it is delivered to us in 

J 1 Kings xi. 41. k 2 Chron. ix. 29. ' Ibid. xxvi. 22, 



Lect. IV.] RATIONALISTIC OBJECTION ANSWERED. 93 

Kings and Chronicles. " The prophets, who in their 
prophecies and addresses held forth to the people, 
not only the law as a rule and direction, but also the 
history of the past as the mirror and example of 
their life, must have reckoned the composition of 
the theocratic history among the duties of the call 
given to them by the Lord, and composed accord- 
ingly the history of their time by noting down 
public annals, in which, without respect of persons, 
the life and conduct of the kings were judged and 
exhibited according to the standard of the revealed 
law (8)." With this judgment of a living German 
writer there is sufficient reason to concur ; and we 
may therefore conclude that the history in Kings 
and Chronicles rests upon the testimony of contem- 
porary and competent witnesses. 

The only objection of any importance that Ratio- 
nalism makes to the conclusion which we have here 
reached, is drawn from the circumstances of the time 
when the books were composed ; which is thought 
to militate strongly against their having been drawn 
directly from the sources which have been indicated. 
The authority of the writers of these Books, we are 
told (9), " cannot have been the official annals " of 
the kingdoms ; for these must have perished at their 
destruction, and therefore could not have been con- 
sulted by authors who lived later than the Captivity. 
It may be granted that the mass of the State Ar- 
chives are likely to have perished with Samaria and 
Jerusalem, if we understand by that term the bulky 
documents which contained the details of official 



94 'KINGS' AND 'CHRONICLES' INDEPENDENT. [Lect. IY. 

transactions : but there is no more difficulty in sup- 
posing that the digested annals which the prophets 
had composed escaped, than there is in understand- 
ing how the Prophecy of Isaiah and the rest of the 
Sacred Volume were preserved. At any rate, if 
there be a difficulty, it is unimportant in the face of 
the plain and palpable fact, that the authors of the two 
Books speak of the annals as existing, and continually 
refer their readers to them for additional information. 
However we may account for it, the " Books of the 
Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah," the 
different portions of which had been written by the 
prophets above mentioned, were still extant when 
the authors of Kings and Chronicles wrote their his- 
tories, having escaped the dangers of war, and sur- 
vived the obscure time of the Captivity. It is not 
merely that the writers in question profess to quote 
from them ; but they constantly appeal to them as 
books the contents of which are well known to their 
own readers. 

The confirmation which the Books of Kings and 
Chronicles lend to each other, deserves some notice 
while we are engaged with this portion of the 
enquiry. Had the later composition uniformly fol- 
lowed, and, as it were, echoed the earlier, there 
would have been but little advantage in the double 
record. We should then only have known that the 
author of the Book of Chronicles regarded the Book 
of Kings as authentic. But the Chronicler — I use 
the term in no offensive sense — does not seem really 
in any case merely to follow the writer of Kings (10). 



Lect. IV.] THE BOOKS MUTUALLY CONFIEMATOKY. 95 

On the contrary he goes straight to the fountain- 
head, and draws his materials partly from the 
sources used by the earlier writer, partly (as it 
seems) from contemporary sources which that writer 
had neglected. He is thus, throughout, a distinct 
and independent authority for the history of his 
nation, standing to the writer of Kings as Africanus 
stands to Eusebius, in respect of the history of 
Egypt (11). As the double channel by which 
Manetho's Egyptian history is conveyed to us, ren- 
ders our hold upon that history far more firm and 
secure than would have been the case, had we 
derived, our knowledge of it through one channel 
only ; so the two parallel accounts, which we possess 
in Kings and Chronicles of the history of Solomon 
and his successors, give us a hold upon the original 
annals of this period which we could not have had 
otherwise. The Chronicler, while he declines to be 
beholden to the author of Kings for any portion of 
his narrative, and does not concern himself about 
apparent discrepancies between his own work and 
that of the earlier writer, confirms the whole general 
course of that writer's history, repeating it, illustra- 
ting it, and adding to it, but never really differing 
from it, except in such minute points as are readily 
explainable by slight corruptions of the text in the 
one case or the other (12). 

Further, the narrative contained in Kings and 
Chronicles receives a large amount of illustration, 
and so of confirmation, from the writings of the con- 
temporary Prophets, who exhibit the feelings natural 



96 WRITINGS OF CONTEMPORARY PROPHETS. [Le ct.IV. 



under the circumstances described by the historians, 
and incidentally allude to the facts recorded by them. 
This point has been largely illustrated by recent 
writers on the prophetical Scriptures, who find the 
interpretation of almost every chapter " bound up 
with references to contemporary events political and 
social," and discover in this constant connexion at 
once a " source of occasional difficulty," and a fre- 
quent means of throwing great additional light on 
the true meaning of the prophetical writers (13). 
The illustration thus afforded to prophecy by history 
is reflected back to history from prophecy ; and there 
is scarcely an event in the Jewish annals after the 
reign of Uzziah — which is the time of the earliest of 
the extant prophetical writings (14)— that is not 
illuminated by some touch from one prophet or 
another. To take the case of a single writer — Isaiah 
mentions the succession of Jewish kings from Uzziah 
to Hezekiah, m the alliance of Eezin, king of Syria, 
and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, 
against Ahaz, n the desolation of their country which 
shortly followed, the plunder of Damascus, and the 
spoiling of Samaria at this time, p the name of the 
then high-priest, q the Assyrian conquests of Hamath, 
Aradus, and Samaria, 1 " the close connexion about this 
time of Egypt and Ethiopia, 8 the inclination of the 
Jewish monarchs to lean on Egypt for suppor- 



m Isaiah i. 1. 
n Ibid. vii. 1, 2. 
Ibid, verse 16. 
p Ibid. viii. 4. Compare 2 
Kings xvi. 9. 



q Ibid, verse 2. Compare 
2 Kings xvi. 10-16 
r Ibid. x. 9-11. 
9 Isaiah xx. 3-5. 



Lect. IV.] CONFIKMATORY STATEMENTS OF ISAIAH. 97 



against Assyria, 1 the conquest by Sennacherib of the 
" fenced cities" of Judah, u the embassy of Rabshakeh, v 
the sieges of Libnah and Lachish, w the preparations 
of Tirhakah against Sennacherib/ the prayer of 
Hezekiah/ the prophecy of Isaiah in reply, 2 the 
destruction of Sennacherib's host, a the return of Sen- 
nacherib himself to Nineveh/ his murder and the 
escape of his murderers, Hezekiah's illness and reco- 
very/ and the embassy sent to him by Merodach- 
Baladan, king of Babylon ; e — he glances also at the 
invasion of Tiglath-Pileser, and the destruction then 
brought upon a portion of the kingdom of Israel/ at 
the oppression of Egypt under the Ethiopian yoke, g 
at the subjection of Judsea to Assyria during the 
reign of Ahaz, h and at many other events of less con- 
sequence. About half the events here mentioned 
are contained in the three historical chapters of 
Isaiah, 1 which are almost identical with three chapters 
of the Second Book of Kings : j but the remainder 
occur merely incidentally among the prophecies ; and 
these afford the same sort of confirmation to the plain 
narrative of Kings and Chronicles, as the Epistles of 
St. Paul have been shewn to furnish to the Acts (15). 
Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah, con- 



1 Isaiah xxx. 2, 3, &c. 
1-3. 

u Ibid, xxxvi. 1. 
v Ibid, verses 2-22. 
w Ibid, xxxvii. 8. 
x Ibid, verse 9. 
y Ibid, verses 15-20. 
z Ibid, verses 22-35. 
a Ibid, verse 36. 
b Ibid, verse 37. 



c Isaiali xxxvii. 38. 
d Ibid, xxxviii. 
e Ibid, xxxix. 1, 2. 
f Ibid. ix. 1. 
g Ibid. xix. 4, &c. 
h Ibid. xiv. 24-28. 
' Chaps, xxx^vi. xxxvii. and 
xxxviii. 

1 Chaps, xviii. xix. and xx. 



H 



98 ASSYRIAN INSCRIPTIONS. [Lect. IV. 

tain numerous allusions of a similar character, illus- 
trative of the history at this time and subsequently. 
Jeremiah, in particular, is as copious in notices 
bearing upon Jewish history for the time, extending 
from Josiah to the Captivity, as Isaiah is for the 
reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. 

Having thus briefly noticed the character of the 
documents in which this portion of the history has 
come down to us, and drawn attention to the weight 
of the scriptural evidence in favour of its authenti- 
city, I proceed to the consideration of that point 
which is the special subject of these Lectures — the 
confirmation which this part of the narrative receives 
from profane sources. 

The separate existence of the two kingdoms of 
Israel and Judah is abundantly confirmed by the 
Assyrian inscriptions. Kings of each country occur 
in the accounts which the great Assyrian monarchs 
have left us of their conquests — the names being 
always capable of easy identification with those re- 
corded in Scripture, and occurring in the chronolo- 
gical order which is there given (16). The Jewish 
monarch bears the title of " King of Judah," while 
his Israelitish brother is designated after his capital 
city ; which, though in the earlier times not called 
Samaria, is yet unmistakably indicated under the 
term Beth-Klmmri (17), " the house or city of Omri," 
that monarch having been the original founder of 
Samaria, according to Scripture. k 

The first great event in the kingdom of Judah 
k 1 Kings xvi. 24. 



Lect. IV.] RECORD OF EGYPTIAN CONQUEST. 91) 

after the separation from Israel, was the invasion of 
Judges by Shishak, king of Egypt, in the fifth year 
of Rehoboam. Shishak came up against Jerusalem 
with " twelve hundred chariots and threescore thou- 
sand horsemen," besides a host of footmen who were 
"without number." 1 He "took the fenced cities 
which pertained to Judah," and was proceeding to 
invest the capital, when Rehoboam made his submis- 
sion, delivered up the treasures of the temple, and of 
his own palace, and became one of the " servants " 
or tributaries of the Egyptian king. m This success 
is found to have been commemorated by Shishak on 
the outside of the great temple at Karnac ; and here, 
in a long list of captured towns and districts, which 
Shishak boasts of having added to his dominions, 
occurs the "Melchi Yuda" or kingdom of Judah (18), 
the conquest of which by this king is thus distinctly 
noticed in the Egyptian records. 

About thirty years later Judasa was again invaded 
from this quarter. " Zerah the Ethiopian," at the 
head of an army of " a thousand thousand " n — or a 
million of men — who were chiefly Ethiopians and 
Lybians, made war upon Asa, and entering his king- 
dom at its south-western angle, was there met by the 
Jewish monarch, and signally defeated by him. p In 
this case we cannot expect such a confirmation as in 
the last instance ; for nations do not usually put on 
record their great disasters. It appears, however, 
that at the time indicated the king of Egypt was an 

1 2 Cliron. xii. 3. m Ibid, verse viii. n Ibid. xiv. 9. 

Ibid. xvi. 8. p Ibid. xiv. 12, 13. 

ii 2 



100 COINCIDENCE OF PHOENICIAN ANNALS. [Lect. 1Y. 

Osorkon (19)— a name identical in its root consonants 
with Zerach ; and it appears also that Egypt con- 
tinned to decline from this period till the time of 
Psammetichus, a natural result of such a disaster as 
that which befel the invading host. The only diffi- 
culty which meets us is the representation of Zerah 
as an Ethio2Jian — a fact not at present confirmed by 
the monuments. Perhaps, though an Egyptian, he 
was regarded as an Ethiopian, because he ruled over 
Ethiopia, and because his army was mainly composed 
of men belonging to that country. Or perhaps, 
though we have no positive evidence of this, he may 
have been really of Ethiopian extraction. Osorkon 
the Second, who is the natural contemporary of Asa, 
was not descended from the earlier kings of the 
dynasty. He was the son-in-law of his predecessor, 
and reigned in right of his wife. It is therefore not 
all impossible that he may have been an Ethiopian 
by birth, and have ruled over both countries. 

In the succeeding generation, the records of the 
other kingdom present us with some points of con- 
tact between the Jewish and the Phoenician annals, 
in which again we have all the agreement that is 
possible. Ahab, king of Israel, is represented as 
having sought to strengthen himself in the position 
which his father had usurped, by a marriage with a 
foreign princess, and as having made choice for the 
purpose of " Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, king of 
the Ziclonians." q Here again not only have we a 
genuine Phoenician name, but we have the name of 

q 1 Kings xvi. 31. 



Lect. IV.] ETH-BAAL AND EITHOBALUS IDENTICAL. 101 

a king who is proved by the Tyrian history of Me- 
nander to have been seated upon the throne exactly 
at this time. Eithobalus, the priest of Ashteroth (or 
Venus), who by the murder of his predecessor, Pheles, 
became king of Tyre, mounted the throne just fifty 
years after the death of Hiram, the contemporary of 
Solomon (20). Ahab mounted the throne of Israel 
15 or 20 years later, and was thus the younger con- 
temporary of Eithobalus, or Eth-baal, who continued 
to reign at Tyre during a considerable portion of 
Ahab's reign in Israel. The only objection that can 
be taken to this identity — which is generally allowed 
(21) — turns upon the circumstance that Eth-baal is 
called in Scripture, not king of Tyre, but " king of 
the Zidonians." Sidon, it is probable, although a 
dependency of Tyre at this time, had her own line of 
kings ; and if Eth-baal was one of these, the coinci- 
dence between his name and that of the reigning 
Tyrian monarch would be merely accidental, and the 
confirmation here sought to be established would fall 
to the ground. But the fact seems to be that the 
Jewish writers use the term "Zidonians" in two 
senses, one specific, and the other generic, — some- 
times intending by it the inhabitants of Sidon alone, 
sometimes the Phoenicians generally (22). And it is 
probably in this latter sense that the title " king of 
the Zidonians " is applied to the father of Jezebel. 

Menander also related that during the reign of 
Eth-baal, which (as we have seen) coincided in a 
great measure with that of Ahab in Israel, there 
was a remarkable drought, which continued in Phoe- 



102 ANCIENT SYRIAN RECORDS LOST. [Lect. IT. 

nieia for the full space of a year (23). This drought 
is fairly connected with the still longer one in the 
land of Israel, which Elijah announced to Ahab, 1 " 
and which led to the destruction of the priests of 
Baal upon Mount Carmel. 8 

The most remarkable feature in the external history 
of Israel during the reign of Ahab, is the war which 
raged towards its close between the Israelites and the 
Syrians of Damascus. The power and greatness of 
the Damascene king, who bears the name of Ben- 
hadad, are very strikingly depicted. He comes 
against Samaria at the head of no fewer than thirty- 
two subject or confederate "kings,"* with "horses" 
and with "chariots/'" and a "great multitude." Y 
Though defeated with great slaughter on his first 
attempt, he is able to bring into the field another 
army of equal strength in the ensuing year. w The 
exact number of his troops is not mentioned, but it 
may be conjectured, from the losses in his second 
campaign, which are said to have amounted to 
127,000 men. 3 Even this enormous slaughter does 
not paralyse him : he continues the war for three 
years longer, and in the third year fights the 
battle in which Ahab is slain/ Now, of this par- 
ticular struggle we have no positive confirmation, 
owing to the almost total loss of the ancient Syrian 
records (24). But we have, in the cuneiform annals 
of an Assyrian king, a very curious and valuable 



r 1 Kings xrii. 1. 
3 Ibid. chap, xviii. 
1 Ibid. xx. 1. 
■ Ibid. 



v 1 Kings xvii. 13. 
w Ibid. xx. 25. 
x Ibid, verses 28 and 29. 
y Ibid. xxii. 1-36. 



Lect. IV.] NIMRUD OBELISK INSCRIPTION. 103 

confirmation of the power of Damascus at this time 
■ — of its being under the rule of a monarch named 
Ben-hadad, who was at the head of a great confe- 
deracy of princes, and w T ho was able to bring into 
the field year after year vast armies, with which 
he repeatedly engaged the whole force of Assyria. 
We have accounts of three campaigns between the 
Assyrians on the one side, and the Syrians, Hittites, 
Hamathites, and Phoenicians, united under the com- 
mand of Ben-hadad, upon the other (25), in which 
the contest is maintained with spirit, the armies 
being of a large size, and their composition and cha- 
racter such as we find described in Scripture (26). 

The same record further verifies the historical 
accuracy of the Books of Kings, by a mention of 
Hazael as king of Damascus immediately after Ben- 
hadad (27), and also by the synchronism which it 
establishes between this prince and Jehu, who is the 
first Israelite king mentioned by name on any in- 
scription hitherto discovered. Jehu appears by the 
monument in question to have submitted himself to 
the great Assyrian conqueror (28) ; and it may be 
suspected that from this date both the Jewish and the 
Israelitish kings held their crowns as fiefs dependent 
on the will of the Assyrian monarch, with whom it 
formally lay to "confirm" each new prince "in his 
kingdom." z 

A break now occurs in the series of profane 
notices, which have extended, without the omission 
of a generation, from the time of David to that of 

2 2 Kings xiv. 5; xv. 19. 



101 HIATUS IN PROFANE RECORDS. [Lect. IV. 

Jehu. During the century which follows on the 
death of that monarch we are able to adduce from 
profane sources no more than one or two doubtful 
illustrations of the Sacred Narrative. Here, how- 
ever, it is to be remarked, that the absence of 
profane confirmation is coincident with, and must 
fairly be regarded as resulting from, a want of suffi- 
cient materials. There is a great dearth of copious 
Assyrian inscriptions from the time of the monarch 
who made Jehu tributary to that of the Tiglath- 
Pileser of Scripture (29). For this time too the 
Tyrian records are an absolute blank (30), while the 
Egyptian are but little better ; and moreover there 
seems to have been no political contact between 
these countries and Palestine during the period in 
question. We cannot therefore be surprised at the 
deficiency here noted ; nor would it be right to view 
it as having the slightest tendency to weaken the 
force of our previous reasoning. 

The Hebrew annals touch no foreign country, of 
which we have any records at all, from the time 
of Jehu to that of Men ahem. In the reign of this 
latter prince occurs the first direct mention of Assyria 
as a power actively interfering in Palestine, and 
claiming and exercising political influence. We are 
told that in the reign of Menahem, " Pul, the king 
of Assyria, came up against the land ; and Menahem 
gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand 
might be with him, to confirm the kingdom in his 
hand." 8 There is some difficulty in identifying the 

il 2 Kings, xv. 19. 



Lect. IV.] PHUL MENTIONED BY BEROSUS, ETC. 105 

Assyrian monarcli here mentioned, who not only 
took this large tribute, but (as appears from Chro- 
nicles 15 ) led a portion of the nation into captivity. 
In the Hebrew Scriptures he appears as Pul, or 
rather Phul ; and this is also the form of the name 
which the Armenian Eusebius declares to have been 
used by Polyhistor (31), who followed Berosus ; but 
in the Septuagint he is called Phaloch, or Phalos 
(32), a form of which the Hebrew word seems to be 
an abbreviation. The Assyrian records of the time 
present us with no name very close to this ; but 
there is one which has been read variously as 
Phal-lukha, Vullukha, and Jva-hish, wherein it is not 
improbable that we may have the actual appellation 
of the Biblical Phul, or Phaloch. The annals of this 
monarch are scanty ; but in the most important record 
which we possess of his reign, there is a notice of 
his having taken tribute from Beth-Khumri, or 
Samaria, as well as from Tyre, Sidon, Damascus, 
Idumsea, and Philistia (33). Neither the name of 
the Israelitish king, nor the amount of his tribute, is 
mentioned in the Assyrian record ; but the amount 
of the latter, which may to many appear excessive, 
receives illustration, and a certain degree of confir- 
mation, from a fact which happens to be recorded on 
the monument — namely, that the Assyrian monarch 
took at this time from the king of Damascus a tribute 
considerably greater than that which, according to 
the author of Kings, he now exacted from Menahem. 
From Menahem he received 1000 talents of silver ; 

b 1 Cliron. v. 26. 



106 RECOVERY OF ASSYRIAN RECORDS. [Lect. IV. 

but from the Damascene king the tribute taken was 
2300 of such talents, together with 3000 talents of 
copper, forty of gold, and 5000 of some other metal 
(34). 

The expedition of Pul against Menahem is followed 
by a series of attacks on the independence of the two 
kingdoms, which cause the sacred history to' be very 
closely connected, for the space of about a century, 
with the annals of Assyria. The successors of Pul 
are presented to us by the Biblical writers, appa- 
rently in a continuous and uninterrupted line — Tig- 
lath-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sargon, Sennacherib, and 
Esar-haddon all of them carrying their arms into 
Palestine, and playing an important part in the his- 
tory of the favoured race. It happens most fortu- 
nately (may we not say providentially ?) that records 
of all these monarchs — the greatest which Assyria 
produced — have been recovered ; and these in some 
cases are sufficiently full to exhibit a close agree- 
ment with the sacred narrative, while throughout 
they harmonize with the tenor of that narrative, 
only in one or two cases so differing from the 
Hebrew text as to cause any difficulty. I shall pro- 
ceed to exhibit this agreement with the brevity 
which my limits necessitate, before noticing the con- 
firmation which this portion of the history derives 
also from the Egyptian and Babylonian records. 

The chief events related of Tiglath-Pileser in 
Scripture are his two invasions of Israel — once when 
lie " took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, 
and Keclcsh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, 



Lect. IV.] CAMPAIGNS OF TIGLATH-PILESER. 107 

and all the land of Naphtali, and carried them 
captive to Assyria;" and again, when he came at 
the invitation of Ahaz, and not only chastised Pekah, 
but "took Damascus, and slew Kezin." d Of the first 
of these two campaigns we have no profane con- 
firmation ; but some account of the second is given 
in an Assyrian fragment, where Tiglath-Pileser 
speaks of his defeating Resin, and capturing Damas- 
cus, and also of his taking tribute from the king 
of Samaria. The monarch indeed from whom he 
takes the tribute is called Menahem, instead of Pekah ; 
and this constitutes a discrepancy — the first that we 
have found — between the Assyrian and the Hebrew 
records : but the probability is that Pekah is in- 
tended, and that the official who composed, or the 
workman who engraved, the Assyrian document 
made a mistake in the name (35). 

Tiglath-Pileser is also stated in Scripture to have 
been, visited at Damascus by the Jewish king, Ahaz ; 
and the result of this visit was that Ahaz set up 
a new altar in the temple at Jerusalem, according to 
the pattern of an altar which he had seen at Damas- 
cus. 6 It has been generally supposed that this altar 
was Syrian (36) ; and its establishment has been 
connected with the passage in Chronicles, where 
Ahaz is said to have " sacrificed to the gods of 
Damascus, which smote him ;" f but few things can be 
more improbable than the adoption of the gods of 
a foreign nation at the moment when they had been 

c 2 Kings xv. 29. e 2 Kings xvi. 10-16. 

d Ibid. xvi. 7-9. f 2 Citron, xxviii. 23. 



10S MILITARY EXPLOITS OF SHALMANESER. [Lect. IV. 

proved powerless. The strange altar of Aliaz was in 
all probability not Syrian, but Assyrian ; and its 
erection was in accordance with an Assyrian custom, 
of which the Inscriptions afford abundant evidence — ■ 
the custom of requiring from the subject nations 
some formal acknowledgment of the gods and wor- 
ship of the sovereign country (37). 

The successor of Tiglath-Pileser seems to have 
been Shalmaneser — a king, whose military exploits 
in these regions were celebrated by Menander in his 
history of Tyre (38). He appears, from the narra- 
tive in Kings, to have come up twice against Hoshea, 
the last king of Israel, 2 — on the first occasion merely 
enforcing the tribute which was regarded as due, but 
on the second proceeding to extremities, in order to 
punish Hoshea for contracting an alliance with Egypt, 
laying siege to Samaria, and continuing to prosecute 
the siege for the space of three years. The records 
of Shalmaneser have been so mutilated by his suc- 
cessors, that they furnish only a very slight con- 
firmation of this history. The name of Hoshea, 
however, king of Samaria, is found in an inscription, 
which has been with reason assigned to Shalmaneser 
(39) ; and though the capture of Samaria is claimed 
by his successor, Sargon, as an exploit of his own in 
his first year (40), yet this very claim confirms the 
Scriptural account of Shalmaneser' s commencing the 
siege, which began three years before the capture ; h 
and it is easily brought into harmony with the Scrip- 
tural account of the actual capture, either by sup- 

g 2 Kings xvii. 3 and 5. h 2 Kings xvii. and xviii. 9, 10. 



Lect. IV.] SARGON'S CAPTURE OF SAMARIA. 109 

posing that Sargon claimed the success as falling 
into his own reign (which had then begun at Nine- 
veh), though Shalmaneser was the real captor ; or by 
regarding (as we are entitled to do) the king of 
Assyria, who is said to have taken Samaria in the 
Book of Kings, as a distinct person from the king 
who commenced the siege (41). 

Of Shalmaneser's successor, Sargon, Scripture con- 
tains but one clear historic notice. In the 20th 
chapter of Isaiah, we are told that " in the year that 
Tartan came unto Ashdod (when Sargon, the king 
of Assyria, sent him), and fought against Ashdod, 
and took it," * certain directions were given by the 
Lord to the prophet. It was formerly supposed that 
Sargon was another name for one of the Assyrian 
monarchs mentioned in the Book of Kings (42) ; 
but since the discovery that the king of Assyria, 
who built the great palace at Khorsabad, actually 
bore this appellation, which continued to attach to its 
ruins until the Arab conquest (43), it has been gene- 
rally admitted that we have in Isaiah a reference to 
an Assyrian ruler distinct from all those mentioned 
in Kings, and identical with the Khorsabad monarch 
who was the father of Sennacherib. Now of this 
monarch we find it related in his annals that he 
made war in Southern Syria, and took Ashdod (44). 
Thus the sole fact which Scripture distinctly assigns 
to the reign of Sargon is confirmed by the native 
records; which likewise illustrate the two or three 
other facts probably intended to be assigned to him 
! Isaiah xx. 1. 



110 SAKGON'S CAPTURE OF MEDIA. [Lect. IV. 

by the sacred writers. Isaiah apparently means 
Sargon in the 4th verse of his 20th chapter, when he 
prophesies that "the king of Assyria shall lead away 
the Egyptians prisoners and the Ethiopians captives, 
young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their 
buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt." If this 
be allowed, we obtain a second illustration of Sargon' s 
reign from the monuments ; which represent him as 
warring with Egypt, and forcing the Pharaoh of the 
time to become his tributary, and which also show 
that Egypt was at this time in just that close con- 
nexion with Ethiopia (45) which the prophet's ex- 
pressions indicate. 3 Again, if we may presume that 
Sargon is intended by the king of Assyria who took 
Samaria, k and carried the Israelites away captive ; * 
then there is derivable from the monuments a very 
curious illustration of the statement of Scripture, 
that the monarch who did this, placed his captives, 
or at least a portion of them, " in the cities of the 
Medes." m For Sargon seems to have been the first 
Assyrian monarch who conquered Media ; and he ex- 
pressly relates, that, in order to complete its sub- 
jection, he founded there a number of cities, which 
he planted with colonists from the other portions of 
his dominions (46). 

The Assyrian monarch who appears in Scripture 
as most probably the successor of Sargon is Senna- 
cherib, whom the monuments show to have been his 
son. Two expeditions of this prince against Heze- 

1 Isaiah xx. 3 and 4. k 2 Kings xvii. 6. 'Ibid xviii. 11. m Ibid. 



Lect. IV.] RECORD OF SENNACHERIB'S CAMPAIGN. Ill 

Mali are related ; and each of them receives a very 
striking confirmation from a profane source. The 
sacred writers tell us that on the first occasion, 
Hezekiah having thrown off the allegiance 11 which 
the kings of Judah appear to have paid to Assyria at 
least from the time of Ahaz's message to Tiglath- 
Pileser, u Sennacherib, king of Assyria, came up 
against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took 
them : and Hezekiah, king of Judah, sent to the king 
of Assyria to Lachish, saying, ' I have offended ; 
return from me : that which thou puttest upon me, I 
will bear :' and the king of Assyria appointed unto 
Hezekiah, king of Judah, three hundred talents of 
silver and thirty talents of gold." p The annals 
of Sennacherib contain a full account of this cam- 
paign. "And because Hezekiah, king of Judah," 
says Sennacherib,* " would not submit to my yoke, I 
came up against him, and by force of arms and by 
the might of my power I took forty-six of his strong 
fenced cities; and of the smaller towns which were 
scattered about, I took and plundered a countless 
number. And from these places I captured and car- 
ried off as spoil 200,150 people, old and young, male 
and female, together with horses and mares, asses 
and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless multitude. 
And Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his 
capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers 
round the city to hem him in, and raising banks 



n 2 Kings xvii. 7. 
° Ibid. xvi. 7. 
Moid, xviii. 13, 14. 



Compare Isaiah xxxvi. 1, and 
2 Cliron. xxxii. 1-8. 



112 AMOUNT OF THE SPOIL. [Lect. IT. 

of earth against the gates, so as to prevent escape . . . 
Then upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of 
the power of my arms, and he sent out to me 
the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with thirty 
talents of gold, and eight hundred talents of silver, 
and divers treasures, a rich and immense booty. . . 
All these things were brought to me at Nineveh, the 
seat of my government, Hezekiah having sent them 
by way of tribute, and as a token of his submission 
to my power" (47). It is needless to particularise 
the points of agreement between these narratives. 
The only discrepancy is in the amount of silver which 
Sennacherib received ; and here we may easily con- 
ceive, either that the Assyrian king has exaggerated, 
or that he has counted in a portion of the spoil, while 
the sacred writer has merely mentioned the sum 
agreed to be paid as tribute (48). 

The second expedition of Sennacherib into Syria 
seems to have followed very shortly upon the first. 
In neither case was Judaea the sole, or even the main 
object of attack. The real purpose of both expedi- 
tions was to weaken Egypt ; and it was by his 
Egyptian leanings that Hezekiah had provoked the 
anger of his suzerain." 1 No collision appears to have 
taken place on this second occasion between the 
Assyrians and the Jews. Hezekiah was threatened ; 
but before the threats could be put in execution, 
that miraculous destruction of the Assyrian host was 
effected which forms so striking a feature of this 
portion of the sacred narrative. " The angel of the 

'' 2 King's xviii. 21 and 24. 



Lect. IV.] MURDER OF SENNACHERIB. 113 

Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assy- 
rians" (which was at Libnah, on the borders of 
Egypt) "an hundred fourscore and five thousand; 
and when they arose early in the morning, they 
were all dead corpses. " r It has been generally 
seen and confessed, that the marvellous account 
which Herodotus gives of the discomfiture of Senna- 
cherib by Sethos (49) is the Egyptian version of this 
event, which was (naturally enough) ascribed by 
that people to the interposition of its own divinities. 

The murder of Sennacherib by two of his sons, 8 
though not mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions, 
(which have never been found to record the death of 
a king), appears to have been noticed by Berosus ; 
from whom were derived in all probability the brief 
allusions to the event which are met with in the 
fragments of Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus 
(50). The escape of the murderers into Armenia 1 
is in harmony with what is known of the condition of 
that country at the time; for it appears as an inde- 
pendent state generally hostile to the Assyrian 
monarchs, in the cuneiform records of this period 
(51) ; and it is further perhaps worthy of remark, 
that the Armenian traditions spoke distinctly of the 
reception of the two refugees, and of the tracts 
respectively assigned to them (52). 

Esarhaddon is distinctly stated in Scripture to 
have been the son and successor of Sennacherib u As 
usual, the monuments are in complete accordance 

r 2 Kings xix. 35. s Ibid, verse 37. * Ibid. 

u Ibid. xix. 37. Compare Isaiah xxxvii. 38. 

I 



114 MANASSEH CAKEIED TO BABYLON. [Lect. IV. 

(53). Esarhaddon every where calls himself the 
son of Sennacherib ; and there is no appearance in 
the native records of any king having intervened 
between the two (54). The events belonging to the 
reign of Esarliaddon which are introduced by the 
sacred writers into their narrative are but few. As 
his father was contemporary with Hezekiah, we 
naturally regard him as falling into the time of 
Manasseh ; and it has therefore been generally felt 
that he should be the king of Assyria whose cap- 
tains " took Manasseh among the thorns, and bound 
him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon " y The 
monuments confirm the synchronism which Scripture 
implies, by distinctly mentioning " Manasseh, king 
of Judah," among the tributaries of Esarhaddon 
(55) ; and though no direct confirmation has as yet 
been found of the captivity and restoration of the 
Jewish monarch, yet the narrative contains an inci- 
dental allusion which is in very remarkable harmony 
with the native records. One is greatly surprised at 
first hearing that the generals of an Assyrian king, 
on capturing a rebel, carried him to Babylon instead 
of Nineveh — one is almost inclined to suspect a 
mistake. ' What has a king of Assyria to do with 
Babylon ? ' one naturally asks. The reply is, that 
Esarhaddon and he only of all the Assyrian kings, 
actually was king of Babylon — that he built a 
palace, and occasionally held his court there (56) — ■ 
and that consequently a captive was as likely to be 
brought to him at that city as at the metropolis of 

v 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11. 



Lect. IV.] EGYPTIAN AND BABYLONISH EECORDS. 115 

Assyria proper. Had the narrative fallen under the 
reign of any other Assyrian monarch, this explana- 
tion could not have been given ; and the difficulty 
would have been considerable. Occurring where it 
does, it furnishes no difficulty at all, but is one of 
those small points of incidental agreement which are 
more satisfactory to a candid mind than even a very 
large amount of harmony in the main narrative. 

With Esarhaddon the notices of Assyria in the 
sacred history come to an end. Assyria herself 
shortly afterwards disappears (57) ; and her place is 
taken by Babylon, which now for the first time 
becomes a great conquering power. This transfer of 
empire is abundantly confirmed by profane authorities 
(58) ; but, as the historical character of the Biblical 
narrative in this respect has always been allowed, it 
is unnecessary in this place to dwell upon it. I pro- 
ceed to consider the agreement between the sacred 
narrative and the native Egyptian and Babylonian 
records during the later times of the Hebrew mo- 
narchy. 

Egyptian and Jewish history touch at four points 
during this period. Hoshea, the contemporary of 
Shalmaneser, makes a treaty with So, king of Egypt, w 
shortly before the capture of Samaria, or about the 
year B.C. 725. Sennacherib, not very long after- 
wards, on attacking the dependencies of Egypt, 
learns that Tirhakah, king of the Ethiopians, is 
gathering together an army to oppose him. x Nearly 
a century later, Pharaoh-Necho invades Judaea, 

w 2 Kings xvii. 4. x Ibid. xix. 0. 

I 2 



116 



SO IDENTICAL WITH SHEBEK. 



[Lect. IV. 



defeats and kills the Jewish king Josiah, presses 
forward to the Euphrates, takes Carchernish and 
Jerusalem, leads Jehoahaz the son of Josiah into 
captivity, and establishes his dominion over the 
whole of Syria ; but is shortly afterwards defeated 
by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and dispossessed 
of all his conquests/ Finally, about twenty years 
after this, Pharaoh-Hophra is spoken of as en- 
couraging the Jews to resist Nebuchadnezzar, and 
threatened with the wrath of that monarch, into 
whose hands it is said he will be delivered. 2 

Here then, within about 140 years, we have the 
names of four kings of Egypt, one of whom is also 
the sovereign of Oush or Ethiopia. Let us see 
whether the Egyptian annals recognise the monarchs 
thus brought under our notice. 

Neither Manetho nor the monuments present us 
with any name which at all closely resembles the word 
" So." If however we look to the Hebrew literation of 
that name, we shall find that the word is written with 
three letters, which may be (and probably are) all 
consonants. They may read as S, V, H ; and the 
name of the monarch thus designated may most pro- 
perly be regarded as Seveh (59). Now a king of the 
name of Sevech, or Sevechus, appears in the proper 
place in Manetho' s lists ; and the monuments show 
that two monarchs (who seem to have been a father 
and a son), Shebek I. and Shebeh II., ruled Egypt 
about this period (60). The former of the two is 



y 2 Kings xxiii. 29-35 ; xxiv. 
7. Compare 2 Chron. xxxv. 20. 



z Jerem. xliv. 30 ; xlvi. 13- 



2G. 



Lect. IV.] IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER KINGS. 117 

familiar to us under the name (which Herodotus 
assigns to him) of Sabaco (61) ; and it is probably 
this prince of whom the Hebrew writer speaks. The 
fact that he came into contact with Assyria is con- 
firmed by the discovery of his seal at Koyunjik ; it 
had probably been affixed to a treaty which, in con- 
sequence of his machinations, he had been forced to 
make with the triumphant Assyrian monarch (62). 

Tirhakah, who appears as king of the Ethiopians, 
yet at the same time as protector of Egypt, in the 
second Book of Kings, is manifestly the Tstrcus or 
Taracus of Manetho (63), the Tearchon of Strabo 
(64), and the Tehrak of the monuments (65). He 
succeeded the second Shebek, and is proved by his 
remains to have been king of both countries, but to 
have held his court in Ethiopia. 

In the Pharaoh-Necho of Kings and Jeremiah , a it 
is impossible not to recognise the famous Egyptian 
monarch whom Manetho calls Nechao (QQ), Herodotus 
Neco (67), and the monuments Neku (68), the son 
and successor of the first Psammetichus. The inva- 
sion of Syria by this prince, and his defeat of the 
Syrians in a great battle, are attested by Herodotus ; 
who only commits a slight and very venial error, 
when he makes Magdolum instead of Megiddo the 
scene of the encounter (69). It has been usual to 
regard Herodotus as also confirming the capture of 
Jerusalem by Necho (70) ; but too much uncertainty 
attaches to the presumed identity of Cadytis with the 
Jewish capital, to make it wise that much stress 
a Jerem. xlvi. 2-12. 



118 CONTACT WITH BABYLONIAN HISTORY. [Lect. IV.- 

should be laid on this imagined agreement (71). We 
may with more confidence appeal for a confirmation 
of this fact, and of the captivity of Jehoahaz, to the 
fragments of Manetho, who is reported both by Afri- 
canus and by Eusebius to have mentioned these 
Egyptian successes (72). 

Not less certain and unmistakable is the identity 
of the Scriptural Pharaoh-Hophra with Manetho's 
Uaphris, Herodotus' s Apries, and the monumental 
Haifra-het or Haifra (73). Egyptian chronology 
makes this prince contemporary with Nebuchadnez- 
zar (74) ; and if we may trust the abstracts which 
Eusebius and Africanus profess to give of Manetho, 
that writer mentioned the flight of the Jews into 
Egypt upon the destruction of their city, and their 
reception by Uaphris or Hophra (75). The miserable 
end of Hophra, predicted by Jeremiah, is related 
from Egyptian traditions by Herodotus ; and though 
it may be doubted whether his account of the occur- 
rence is in its minuter circumstances altogether 
correct (76), yet at any rate the facts of the deposi- 
tion and execution of the Egyptian king must be 
accepted on his testimony ; and these are the facts 
which especially illustrate the statements of Scripture. 

Babylonian and Jewish history come into contact 
only at two points in the period under consideration. 
We are told that in the reign of Hezekiah, Merodach- 
Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present 
to that prince, partly because he had heard that he 
was sick, b partly because he wished to enquire con- 
b 2 Kings xx. 12. 



Lect. IV.] SUPEEMACY OF BABYLON. 119 

cerning the wonder that had been done in the land, 
when the shadow went back ten degrees on the dial 
of Ahaz. The name of Merodach-Baladan does not 
at first sight ajopear to be contained in the authentic 
list of Babylonian kings preserved to us in Ptolemy. 
But it is probable that the king in question does 
really occur in that list under the appellation of 
Mardoc-empad, or Mardoc-empal (77) ; and there is 
abundant evidence from the Inscriptions, not only of 
the existence of such a monarch, but of his having 
been contemporary with the Jewish king in whose 
reign his embassy is placed (78). The fact of the 
embassy — which seems improbable if we only know 
the general condition of Babylon at the ' period to 
have been one of subjection to Assyria — becomes 
highly probable when we learn — both from Berosus 
(79) and the monuments (80) — that there was a 
fierce and bitter hostility between Merodach-Baladan 
and the Assyrian monarchs, from whose oppressive 
yoke he more than once freed his country. The 
ostensible motive of the embassy — to enquire about 
an astronomical marvel — is also highly probable in 
the case of a country where astronomy held so high 
a rank, where the temples were observatories, and 
the religion was to a great extent astral (81). 

About a century later, Babylon is found in the 
Scripture history to have succeeded to the position 
and influence of Assyria over Palestine, and we have 
a brief relation, in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Kings, of 
several campaigns conducted by Nebuchadnezzar in 
c 2 Ohron. xxxii. 31. 



120 JEWS CAPTIVES IN BABYLON. [Lect. 1Y. 

these regions. Profane accounts are in accordance. 
The reconquest of Syria and Palestine from Necho 
by Nebuchadnezzar, which is mentioned by Jere- 
miah/ and glanced at in Kings, 6 was related at length 
by Berosus (82) ; his prolonged siege of Tyre, which 
is spoken of by Ezekiel/ was attested by the Tyrian 
historians, who said that it lasted thirteen years (83); 
while his destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, and 
his deportation of vast bodies of Jewish captives, 
were noticed by the native historian, who said that 
the captives were settled in convenient places in 
Babylonia (84). As the rest of the acts of Nebu- 
chadnezzar fall into our next period, the present 
review here comes to an end, and we may now close 
this portion of the enquiry with a brief summary of 
the evidence adduced in the course of it. 

The period with which we have been dealing is 
one of comparative light. We possess, it is true, no 
continuous history of it besides that which the Sacred 
Yolume furnishes ; but we have abstracts of the 
writings of Berosus and Manetho, which contained 
the annals of Egypt and of Babylon during the 
space ; we have considerable fragments of the Tyrian 
histories of the time ; and in the latter portion of it 
we begin to enjoy the advantage of those investiga- 
tions which the inquisitive Greeks pushed into the 
antiquities of all the nations wherewith they became 
acquainted. Above all, we possess the contemporary 
records — often in a very copious form — of all the 

d Jerera. xlvi. 1-12. c 2 Kings xxiv. 7. 

f Ezek. xxix. 18. 



Lect. IV.] SUMMARY. " 121 

great Assyrian monarchs whose reigns fell within 
the period in question, while we derive likewise a 
certain amount of information from the monuments 
of Egypt. All these sources have been examined, 
and all have combined to confirm and illustrate the 
Scriptural narrative at almost every point where it 
was possible — or at any rate where it was probable 
— that they would have a bearing upon it. The 
result is a general confirmation of the entire body of 
leading facts — minute confirmation occasionally — and 
a complete absence of anything that can be reason- 
ably viewed as serious discrepancy. A few difficulties 
■ — chiefly chronological (85) — meet us; but they are 
fewer in proportion than are found in the profane his- 
tory of almost any remote period ; and the faith must 
be weak indeed to which they prove a stumbling-block. 
Generally, throughout this whole period, there is that 
" admirable agreement," which Niebuhr observes 
upon towards its close (86), between the profane 
records and the accounts of Scripture. We have not 
for the most part by any laboured efforts to harmonise 
the two — their accord is patent and striking ; and is 
sufficiently exhibited by a mere juxtaposition of pas- 
sages. The monarchs themselves, the order of their 
names, their relationship where it is indicated, their 
actions so far as they come under notice, are the 
same in both the Jewish and the native histories ; 
which present likewise, here as elsewhere, numerous 
points of agreement, connected with the geography, 
religion, and customs of the various nations (87). As 
discovery proceeds, these points of agreement are 



122 SUMMAEY. [Lect. IV. 

multiplied ; obscurities clear up ; difficulties are 
solved ; doubts vanish. It is only where profane 
records are wanting or scanty, that the Sacred nar- 
rative is unconfirmed and rests solely upon its own 
basis. Perhaps a time may come when through the 
recovery of the complete annals of Egypt, Assyria, 
and Babylon, we may obtain for the whole of the 
Sacred History that sort of illustration which is now 
confined to certain portions of it. God, who disposes 
all things " after the counsel of his own will," 8 and 
who has given to the present age such treasures of 
long-buried knowledge, may have yet greater things 
in store for us, to be brought to light at His own 
good time. When the voice of men grows faint and 
feeble, then the very " stones " are made to " cry 
out." h " Blessed be the name of God for ever and 
ever ; for wisdom and might are his . . . He revealeth 
the deep and secret things : He knoweth what is in 
the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him." 1 

e£ph. i. 11. n Luke xix. 40. 

1 Dan. ii. 20, 22. 






Lect. V.] 123 



LECTURE V. 



Psalm CXXXVII. 1-4. 

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, 
when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the 
willows in the midst thereof. For they that carried us aivay 
captive required of us a song : and they that wasted us re- 
quired of us mirth, saying, ' Sing us one of the songs of Zion.' 
How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land f 

We are brought now by the course of our enquiry 
to the fourth and closing period of the Old Testa- 
ment History — a period which subdivides itself into 
two portions offering a marked contrast to each 
other, the time of the Captivity, or servitude in 
Babylon, and the time of the Return, or gradual 
re- establishment of the Jews in their own country. 
From the direct historical writings of the chosen 
people the former time is omitted. The harp of the 
Historic Muse refuses to sound during this sad season ; 
and it would form a blank in the Hebrew annals, 
did we not possess in the writing of one of the Pro- 
phets a personal narrative, which to some extent 
fills up the gap left between Kings and Ezra. Con- 
formably with a custom which we find also in Isaiah 
and Jeremiah, Daniel combines history with pro- 
phecy, uniting in a single book the visions where- 
with he was favoured, and an account of various 
remarkable events which he witnessed. He does 
not, however, confine himself strictly to the prece- 



124 FOURTH PERIOD OF JEWISH HISTORY. [Lect. V. 

dent which those writers had set him ; but, as if 
aware that on him had devolved the double office of 
Prophet and Historian, and that future ages would 
learn the circumstances of this period from his pen 
only, he gives to the historical element in his work 
a marked and very unusual prominence. Hence we 
are still able to continue through the period in ques- 
tion the comparison (in which we have been so long 
engaged) between the History of the Jews as deli- 
vered by their own writers and the records of those 
nations with which they came in contact. 

If the Book of Daniel be a genuine work, the 
narrative which it contains must possess the highest 
degree of historical credibility. The writer claims 
to be a most competent witness. He represents 
himself as having lived at Babylon during the whole 
duration of the Captivity, and as having filled situa- 
tions of the highest trust and importance under the 
Babylonian and Medo-Persic monarchs. Those who 
have sought to discredit the Book uniformly main- 
tain that it is spurious, having been composed by an 
uninspired writer, who falsely assumed the name of 
an ancient prophet (1), — or, according to some, of a 
mythic personage (2), — but who lived really under 
Antiochus Epiphanes. The supposed proof of this 
last assertion is the minuteness and accuracy of the 
predictions, which tally so exactly with the known 
course of history, that it is said they must have been 
written after the events had happened. This objec- 
tion, which was first made in the third century of 
our era by the heathen writer Porphyry \3), has 



Lect. V.] AUTHENTICITY OF DANIEL'S NARRATIVE. 125 

been revived in modern times, and is become the 
favourite argument of the Rationalists (4), with 
whom Prophecy means nothing but that natural 
foresight whereby the consequences of present facts 
and circumstances are anticipated by the prudent 
and sagacious. I shall not stop at this time to exa- 
mine an argument which can only persuade those 
who disbelieve in the prophetic gift altogether (5). 
Suffice it to observe, that the Book of Daniel, like 
the Books of Ezra and Jeremiah, is written partly 
in Hebrew and partly in Ohaldee, which peculiarity 
may fairly be said to fix its date to the time of the 
Captivity (6) : and that it was translated into Greek 
in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, more than 
seventy years before the accession of Epiphanes (7). 
There is therefore every reason to believe that it 
belongs to the age in which it professes to have been 
composed ; while no sufficient ground has been 
shown for doubting that its writer was the Daniel 
whose history it records (8) — the prince (9), whose 
extraordinary piety and wisdom were commended by 
his contemporary, Ezekiel a (10). 

The authenticity of the narrative has been denied 
on the ground that it is irreconcilable with what 
we know of profane history. According to De 
"Wette, the Book of Daniel is full of " historical inac- 
curacies, such as are contained in no other propheti- 
cal book of the Old Testament " (11). These 
pretended inaccuracies will best be considered in 
connexion with that general comparison of the sacred 

• Ezek. xiv. 14 and 20 ; xxvlii. 3. 



126 THE CAPTIVITY AN HISTOEICAL FACT. [Lect. V. 

narrative with the profane records of the period in 
question, on which (in pursuance of the plan uni- 
formly adopted throughout these Lectures) we have 
now to enter. 

The fundamental fact of the time — the Captivity 
itself — is allowed on all hands to admit of no rea- 
sonable doubt. Not only do we find, from the mo- 
numents of the Assyrian kings (12) and the subse- 
quent history of Persia (13), that such transfers of 
whole populations were common in the East in 
ancient times ; but we have the direct evidence of 
Josephus to the fact, that Berosus mentioned the 
carrying off of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar and 
their settlement in parts of Babylonia (14). Pro- 
fane evidence, however, on this point is unneces- 
sary ; since it cannot be thought that any people 
would have invented a tale with regard to them- 
selves which redounded so little to their credit, and 
from which it was impossible that they could gain 
any advantage. 

The character of Nebuchadnezzar, the length of 
his reign, and the fact of his having uttered prophe- 
cies, are points in which there is a remarkable agree- 
ment between the sacred record and profane authori- 
ties. The splendour and magnificence which this 
prince displayed, his military successes, his devotion 
to his gods, and the pride which he took in adorning 
Babylon with great buildings, are noted by Berosus 
and Abydenus (15) ; the latter of whom has a most 
curious passage, for the preservation of which we 
are indebted to Eusebius, on the subject of his 



Lect. V.] LENGTH OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S REIGN. 127 

having been gifted with prophetic powers. " The 
Chaldeans relate," says Abydenus, " that, after this, 
Nebuchadnezzar went up to his palace, and being 
seized with a divine afflatus, prophesied to the Baby- 
lonians the destruction of their city by the Medes 
and Persians, after which he suddenly disappeared 
from among them (16)." The details are incorrect; 
but it is at least remarkable that the particular 
prince, who alone, of all the heathen monarchs with 
whom the Jews were brought into contact, is said in 
Scripture to have had the future made known to 
him by God, b is also the only one of those persons 
who is declared to have had the prophetic gift by a 
profane writer. 

The length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is stated 
without any variety by Berosus, Polyhistor, and 
Ptolemy (17), at 43 years. The Babylonian monu- 
ments go near to prove the same ; for the 42nd year 
of Nebuchadnezzar has been found on a clay tablet 
(18). Here Scripture is in exact accordance ; for as 
the first year of Evil-Merodach, the son and succes- 
sor of Nebuchadnezzar, is the 37th of the captivity 
of Jehoiachin, who was taken to Babylon in Nebu- 
chadnezzar's eighth year, d it is evident that just 
43 years are required for the reign of the great 
Chaldaean monarch (19). This agreement, more- 
over, is incidental ; for Evil-Merodach is not said in 
Scripture to have been the successor of Nebuchad- 
nezzar : we only know this fact from profane sources. 

b Dan. ii. 28-9. I d 2 Kings xxiv. 12. Compare 

c 2 Kings xxv. 27 ; Jer. Hi. 31. | Jer. xxv. 1. 



128 THE "WISE MEN" OF BABYLON. [Lect. V. 

It has been maintained that the book of Daniel 
misrepresents the condition of Babylonia -under 
Nebuchadnezzar (20) ; the points to which objection 
is especially taken being the account given of the 
Babylonian wise men, the admission of Daniel 
among them, and the apparent reference to some- 
thing like a satrapial organisation of the empire 
(21). "With respect to the first point, it would 
really be far more reasonable to adduce the descrip- 
tions in question as proof of the intimate knowledge 
which the writer possessed of the condition of learn- 
ing among the Babylonians, than to bring them 
forward as indications of his ignorance. The wise 
men are designated primarily by a word which 
exactly suits the condition of literature in the time 
and country- — a word derived from the root cheret, 
which means " a graving tool," exactly the instru- 
ment wherewith a Babylonian ordinarily wrote 
(22). They are also termed Ohasdim or Chaldseans, 
whereby a knowledge is shown beyond that of the 
earlier prophets — a knowledge of the fact that the 
term " Chaldasan " was not properly applied to the 
whole nation, but only to a learned caste or class, 
the possessors of the old wisdom, which was written 
in the Chaldaean tongue (23). 

The objection raised to the admission of Daniel 
among the " wise men," is -based on the mistaken 
notion that they were especially a priestly caste, 
presiding over the national religion ; whereas the 
truth seems to be that they were a learned class, 
including the priests, but not identical with them, and 



Lect. V.] BABYLONIA POSSIBLY SATEAPIAL. 129 

corresponding rather to the graduates of a univer- 
sity than to the clergy of an establishment (24). 
Into such a class foreigners, and those of a different 
religion, might readily be admitted. 

With respect to what has been called the " satra- 
pial organisation " of the empire under Nebuchad- 
nezzar 6 (and again under Darius the Mede f ), it is to 
be observed, in the first place, that nothing like a 
general organisation of the kind is asserted. We are 
told of certain " rulers of provinces," who were sum- 
moned to worship the golden image set up in the 
plain of Dura ; g and we find that Judaea itself, after 
the revolt of Zedekiah, was placed under a " gover- 
nor." h But the latter case was exceptional, being 
consequent upon the frequent rebellions of the Jew- 
ish people : and in the former we are probably to 
understand the chiefs of districts in the immediate 
vicinity of Babylonia, who alone would be sum- 
moned on such an occasion — not the rulers of all the 
conquered nations throughout the empire. Further, 
we must remark that the system of Babylonian 
administration is but very little known to us ; and 
that it may to some extent have been satrapiaL Bero- 
sus, at any rate, speaks expressly of " the Satrap 
appointed by Nabopolassar to govern Phoenicia, 
Coele-Syria, and Egypt" (25); and it is not im- 
possible that Darius Hystaspis, who is usually re- 
garded as the inventor of the system, may have 



e Dan. iii. 2, &c. 
f Ibid. vi. I, &c. 
8 Ibid. iii. 1 , 2. 



h 2 Kings xxv. 22. Compare 
Jerem. xl. and xli. 



130 NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S MYSTERIOUS MALADY. [Lect. V. 

merely enlarged a practice begun by the Baby- 
lonians (26). 

There is thus no ground for the assertion that the 
general condition of Babylonia under Nabuchadnez- 
zar is incorrectly represented in the book of Daniel. 
Daniel's representation agrees sufficiently with the 
little that we know of Babylon at this time from any 
authentic source (27), and has an internal harmony 
and consistency which is very striking. We may 
therefore resume our comparison of the particulars of 
the civil history, as it is delivered by the sacred 
writers, and as it has come down to us from the 
Babylonians themselves. 

Berosus appears to have kept silence on the sub- 
ject of Nebuchadnezzar's mysterious malady. I can- 
not think, with Hengstenberg (28), that either he or 
Abydenus intended any allusion to this remarkable 
fact in the accounts which they furnished of his 
decease. It was not to be expected that the native 
writer would tarnish the glory of his country's 
greatest monarch by any mention of an affliction 
which was of so strange and debasing a character. 
Nor is it at all certain that he would be aware of 
it. As Nebuchadnezzar outlived his affliction, and 
was again " established in his kingdom," * all mo- 
numents belonging to the time of his malady would 
have been subject to his own revision ; and if any 
record of it was allowed to descend to posterity, care 
would have been taken that the truth was not made 
too plain, by couching the record in sufficiently am- 

1 Dan. iv. 36. 



Lect. V.] ALLUSION IN THE ' STANDARD INSCRIPTION.' 131 

biguous phraseology. Berosus may have read, with- 
out fully understanding it, a document which has 
descended to modern times in a tolerably complete 
condition, and which seems to contain an allusion 
to the fact that the great king was for a time in- 
capacitated for the discharge of the royal functions. 
In the inscription known as the ' Standard Inscrip- 
tion' of Nebuchadnezzar, the monarch himself re- 
lates, that during some considerable time — four 
years apparently— all his great works were at a 
stand — " he did not build high places — he did not 
lay up treasures — he did not sing the praises of his 
Lord, Merodach — he did not offer him sacrifice — he 
did not keep up the works of irrigation " (29). The 
cause of this suspension, at once of religious worship 
and of works of utility, is stated in the document 
in phrases of such obscurity as to be unintelligible ; 
until therefore a better explanation is offered, it 
cannot but be regarded as at least highly probable, 
that the passage in question contains the royal ver- 
sion of that remarkable story with which Daniel 
concludes his notice of the great Chaldsean sove- 
reign. 

For the space of time intervening between the 
recovery of Nebuchadnezzar from his affliction and 
the conquest of Babylon by the Medo-Persians, 
which was a period of about a quarter of a century, 
the Biblical narrative supplies us with but a single 
fact — the release from prison of Jehoiachin by Evil- 
Merodach in the year that he ascended the throne of 
his father. It has been already remarked that the 

k 2 



132 CHARACTER OF EVIL-MERODACH. [laser. V. 

native historian agreed exactly in the name of this 
prince and the year of his accession ; he added (what 
Scripture does not expressly state), that Evil-Mero- 
dach was Nebuchadnezzar's son (30). With regard 
to the character of this monarch, there seems at first 
sight to be a contrast between the account of Bero- 
sus and the slight indications which the Scripture 
narrative furnishes. Berosus taxes Evil-Merodach 
with intemperance and lawlessness (31) ; Scripture 
relates that he had compassion on Jehoiachin, re- 
leased him from prison, and " spake kindly unto 
linn" 3 — allowed him the rank of kipg once more, 
and made him a constant guest at his table, thus 
treating him with honour and tenderness during 
the short remainder of his life. Perhaps to the 
Babylonians such a reversal of the policy pursued 
by their great monarch appeared to be mere reck- 
less " lawlessness ;" and Evil-Merodach may have 
been deposed, in part at least, because of his depar- 
ture from the received practice of the Babylonians 
with respect to rebel princes. 

The successor of this unfortunate king was his 
brother-in-law, Neriglissar ; who, although not men- 
tioned in Scripture as a monarch, has been recog- 
nised among the " princes of the king of Babylon " k 
by whom Nebuchadnezzar was accompanied in his 
last siege of Jerusalem. A name there given, Nergal- 
shar-ezar, corresponds letter for letter with that of a 
king whose remains are found on the site of Babylon 
(32), and who is reasonably identified with the Neri- 
j 2 Kings xxv. 28. k Jereni. xxxix. 3 and 13. 



Lect. V.] DANIEL'S NARRATIVE OF BELSHAZZAR. 133 

glissar of Berosus and the Nerigassolassar of Pto- 
lemy's Canon. Moreover, the title of "Rab-Mag," 
which this personage bears in Jeremiah, is found 
attached to the name of the Babylonian monarch in 
his brick legends (33) — a coincidence of that minute 
and exact kind which is one of the surest indications 
of authentic history. 

Of the son of Neriglissar, who was a mere child, 
and reigned but a few months, Scripture certainly 
contains no trace. Whether his successor, the last 
native king of the Canon, whose name is there given 
as Nabonadius, and who appears elsewhere as Naban- 
nidochus, Nabonnedus, or Labynetus (34) — whether 
this monarch has a place in the Scriptural narrative 
or no, has long been a matter of dispute among the 
learned. That there is no name in the least resembling 
Nabonadius in the Bible, is granted. But it has 
been by many supposed that that prince must be 
identical with Daniel's Belshazzar (35) — the last 
native ruler mentioned in Scripture. The great 
diversity, however, of the two names, coupled with 
the fact that in every other case of a Semitic monarch 
— whether Assyrian or Babylonian — the Hebrew 
representative is a near expression of the vernacular 
term, has always made this theory unsatisfactory ; 
and Rationalists, finding no better explanation than 
this of the acknowledged difficulty (36), have been 
emboldened to declare that Daniel's account of Bel- 
shazzar is a pure invention of his own, that it contra- 
dicts Berosus, and is an unmistakable indication of 
the unhistorical character which attaches to the 



134 BELSHAZZAR AN ASSOCIATE ON THE THRONE. [Lect. V. 

entire narrative (37). It was difficult to meet the 
arguments of these objectors in former times. Not 
only could they point to the want of confirmation by 
any profane writer of the name Belshazzar, but they 
could urge further " contradictions." Berosus, they 
could say, made the last Babylonian monarch absent 
from the city at the time of its capture by the Per- 
sians. He spoke of him as taken prisoner afterwards 
at Borsippa, and as then not slain, but treated with 
much kindness by Cyrus. Thus the two narratives 
of the fall of Babylon appeared to be wholly irrecon- 
cilable, and some were driven to suppose two falls of 
Babylon, to escape the seeming contrariety (38). 
But out of all this confusion and uncertainty a very 
small and simple discovery, made a few years since, 
has educed order and harmony in a very remarkable 
way. It is found that Nabonadius, the. last king of 
the Canon, associated with him on the throne during 
the later years of his reign his son, Bil-shar-uzur, 
and allowed him the royal title (39). There can be 
little doubt that it was this prince who conducted 
the defence of Babylon, and was slain in the massacre 
which followed upon the capture ; while his father, 
who was at the time in Borsippa, surrendered, and 
experienced the clemency which was generally shewn 
to fallen kings by the Persians. 

If it be still objected that Belshazzar is, in Scrip- 
ture, not the son of Nabonadius, but of Nebuchad- 
nezzar, 1 and of the Nebuchadnezzar who carried off 
the sacred vessels from Babylon, m it is enough to 

1 Dan. v. 11, 18, &e. m Ibid, verse 2. 



Lect. V.] " DAK1US THE MEDE " NOT IDENTIFIED. 135 

reply, first that the word " son " is used in Scripture 
not only in its proper sense, but also as equivalent 
to " grandson," or indeed any descendant (40) ; and 
secondly, that Bil-shar-uzur (or Belshazzar) may 
easily have been Nebuchadnezzar's grandson, since 
his father may upon his accession have married a 
daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar may 
have been the issue of this marriage (41). A usurper 
in those days commonly sought to strengthen himself 
in the government by an alliance with some princess 
of the house, or branch, which he dispossessed. 

There still remains one historical difficulty in the 
book of Daniel, which modern research has not yet 
solved, but of which Time, the great discoverer, will 
perhaps one day bring the solution. We can only at 
present indulge in conjectures concerning " Darius 
the Mede," who " took the kingdom " after Belshazzar 
was slain. n He has been identified with Astyages 
(42), with Cyaxares, a supposed son of Astyages (43), 
with Neriglissar (44), and with Nabonadius (45) ; 
but each of these suppositions has its difficulties, and 
perhaps it is the most probable view that he was a 
viceroy set up by Cyrus, of whom there is at present 
no trace in profane history (46). 

The fact of the sudden and unexpected capture of 
Babylon by a Medo-Persic army during the celebra- 
tion of a festival, and of the consequent absorption of 
the Babylonian into the Medo-Persic Empire, is one 
of those manifest points of agreement between Scrip- 
ture and profane authors (47) which speak for them- 

n Dan. v. 31. 



136 MEDO-PERSIC SUBJUGATION OF BABYLONIA. [Lect. Y. 

selves, and on which all comment would be super- 
fluous. The administration of the realm after the 
conquest by " the law of the Medes and Persians 
which alter eth not," is at once illustrative of that 
unity of the two great Arian races which all ancient 
history attests (48), and in harmony with that supe- 
riority of law to the king's caprice, which seems to 
have distinguished the Persian from most Oriental 
despotisms (49). With respect to the " satrapial 
organisation of the Empire," which is again detected 
in Daniel's account of the reign of Darius the Mede 
(50), and which is supposed to have been transferred 
to this time from the reign of Darius Hystaspis by 
an anachronism, it may be observed, that the " 120 
princes" which " it pleased Darius to set over the 
kingdom," p are not satraps, perhaps not even provin- 
cial governors at all, but rather a body of councillors 
resident in or near the capital, and accustomed to 
meet together,* 1 to advise the monarch. It it a mis- 
take to suppose that Darius the Mede, like the 
Ahasuerus of Esther, with whom he has been com- 
pared (51), rules over the East generally. He " was 
made king over the realm of the Chaldceans" r — that is, 
he received from Cyrus., the true conqueror of Baby- 
lon, the kingdom of Babylonia proper, which he 
held as a fief under the Medo-Persic Empire. The 
120 princes are either his council, or at the most 
provincial governors in the comparatively small 
kingdom of Babylon ; and the coincidence (if such it 

° Dan. vi. 8. p Ibid, verse 1. q Ibid, verses 4 to 6. 
r Ibid. ix. 1. 



Lect. V.] CLOSE OF THE CAPTIVITY OF JUDAH. 137 

is to be considered) between their number and that 
of the 127 provinces of Ahasuerus, extending from 
Ethiopia to India, 8 is purely accidental. There is 
no question here of the administration of an Empire, 
but only of the internal regulations of a single pro- 
vince. 

We have now reached the time when the Captivity 
of Judah approached its close. "In the first year of 
Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the 
Medes,"* Daniel, who naturally counted the Captivity 
from the time when he was himself carried off from 
Jerusalem, 11 perceiving that the period fixed by 
Jeremiah for the restoration of the Jews to their 
.own land approached, " set his face to seek by 
prayer and supplications, with fastings, and sack- 
cloth and ashes," v that God would "turn away his 
fury and anger from Jerusalem," w and "cause his 
face to shine upon his sanctuary," x and "do, and 
defer not." 7 It is evident therefore that, according 
to the calculations of Daniel, a space little short of 
70 years had elapsed from the capture of Jerusalem 
in the reign of Jehoiakim to the first year of Darius 
the.Mede. The close agreement of this chronology 
with the Babylonian is very remarkable. It can be 
clearly shewn, from a comparison of Berosus with 
Ptolemy's Canon, that, according to the reckoning of 
the Babylonians, the time between Nebuchadnezzar's 
first conquest of Judea in the reign of Jehoiakim 
and the year following the fall of Babylon, when 

8 Esther i. 1. l Dan. ix. 1. u Ibid. i. 1. v Ibid. ix. 3. 

■" Ibid, verse 16. x Ibid, verse 17. * Ibid, verse 19, 



138 JEWS RESTORED TO THEIR OWN LAND. [Lect. V. 

Daniel made his prayer, was 68 years (52), or two 
years only short of the seventy which had been fixed 
by Jeremiah as the duration of the Captivity. 

Attempts have been made to prove a still more 
exact agreement (53) ; but they are unnecessary. 
Approximate coincidence is the utmost that we have 
any right to expect between the early chronologies of 
different nations, whose methods of reckoning are in 
most cases somewhat different ; and in the present 
instance the term of seventy years, being primarily a 
prophetic and not an historic number, is perhaps not 
intended to be exact and definite (54). 

The restoration of the Jews to their own land, and 
their fortunes till the reform of Nehemiah, are re- 
lated to us in the three historical books of Ezra, 
Nehemiah, and Esther ; and receive illustration from 
the prophecies of Zachariah, Haggai, and Malachi. 
The generally authentic character of the books of 
Ezra and Nehemiah has never been questioned. 
They disarm the Eationalist by the absence from 
them of any miraculous, or even any very marvel- 
lous features ; and the humble and subdued tone 
in which they are written, the weakness and sub- 
jection which they confess, mark in the strongest 
possible way the honesty and good faith of their 
composers. Under these circumstances the question 
of their genuineness becomes one of minor import- 
ance. If the relations are allowed to be true, it is of 
little consequence who was their author. I see, how- 
ever, no reason to doubt that in the main the two 
books are the works of the individuals whose names 



Lect. V.] AUTHENTICITY OF EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. 139 

they bear in the Septuagint and in our own version. 
That some portions of the book of Ezra were written 
by Ezra, and that Nehemiah wrote the greater part 
of the book of Nehemiah, is allowed even by De 
Wette ; who has not (I think) shewn sufficient 
ground for questioning the integrity of either com- 
position (55), unless in respect of a single passage. 
The genealogy of the high priests in the twelfth 
chapter of Nehemiah 2 is a later addition to the 
book, which cannot have been inserted into it before 
the time of Alexander (56). It stands to the rest of 
Nehemiah as the genealogy of the Dukes of Edom a 
stands to Genesis, or that of the descendants of 
Jechoniah b to the rest of Chronicles (57). But 
apart from this passage there is nothing in Nehe- 
miah which may not have been written by the cup- 
bearer of Artaxerxes Longimanus ; while in Ezra 
there is absolutely nothing at all which may not 
easily have proceeded from the pen of the " ready 
scribe " who was in favour with the same monarch. 
It is objected that the book sometimes speaks of 
Ezra in the third, sometimes in the first person ; and 
concluded from this fact that he did not write the 
parts in which the third person is used (58). But 
the examples of Daniel (59) and Thucydides (60) 
are sufficient to shew that an author may change 
from the one person to the other even more than 
once in the course of a work ; and the case of Daniel 
is especially in point, as indicating the practice of 

2 Verses 10 to 22. a Gen. xxxvi. 31-43. 

b 1 Chron. Hi. 17-24. 



140 EZRA AND NEHEMIAH EYE-WITNESSES. [Lect. V. 

the period. The same irregularity (it may be re- 
marked) occurs in the Persian inscriptions (61). It 
belongs to the simplicity of rude times, and has 
its parallel in the similar practice found even now in 
the letters of uneducated persons. 

If then the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are 
rightly regarded as the works of those personages, 
they will possess the same high degree of historical 
credibility as the later portions of the Pentateuch. 
Ezra and Nehemiah were chief men in their nation 
— the one being the ecclesiastical, the other the 
civil head ; and they wrote the national history of 
their own time, for which they are the most com- 
petent witnesses that could possibly have come for- 
ward. Ezra, moreover, resembles Moses in another 
respect : he not only gives an account of his own 
dealings with the Jewish people, but prefaces that 
account by a sketch of their history during a period 
with which he was personally unacquainted. As this 
period does not extend farther back than about 
80 years from the time when he took the direction 
of affairs at Jerusalem (62), and as the facts recorded 
are of high national importance, they would deserve 
to be accepted on his testimony, even supposing that 
he obtained them from mere oral tradition, according 
to the Canons of historical credibility which have 
been laid down in the first Lecture (63). Ezra's 
sketch, however (as many commentators have seen), 
bears traces of having been drawn up from contem- 
porary documents (64) ; and we may safely conclude, 
that the practice of " noting down public annals," 



Lect. V. OBJECTIONS URGED AGAINST 'ESTHER.' 141 

which we have seen reason to regard as a part of 
the prophetic office under the kings (65), was revived 
on the return from the Captivity, when Haggai and 
Zechariah may probably have discharged the duty 
which at an earlier period had been undertaken by 
Jeremiah and Isaiah. 

While the historical authority of the books of 
Ezra and Nehemiah is recognised almost universally, 
that of Esther is impugned by a great variety of 
writers. Niebuhr's rejection of this book has been 
already noticed (66). De Wette regards it as "con- 
sisting of a string of historical difficulties and impro- 
babilities, and as containing a number of errors in 
regard to Persian customs (67)." (Eder, Michaelis, 
Corrodi, Bertholdt, and others, throw more or less 
doubt upon its authenticity (68). The Jews, how- 
ever, have always looked upon it, not only as a true 
and authentic history, but as a book deserving of 
special honour (69) ; and it seems impossible to 
account for its introduction into their Canon on any 
other ground than that of its historic truth. The 
feast of Purim, which the Jews still celebrate, and at 
which the book of Esther is always read, must be re- 
garded as sufficiently evidencing the truth of the 
main facts of the narrative (70) ; and the Jews 
would certainly never have attached to the religious 
celebration of that festival the reading of a document 
from which the religious element is absent, or almost 
absent (71), had they not believed it to contain a 
correct account of the details of the transaction. 
Their belief constitutes an argument of very great 



142 AUTHORSHIP OF < ESTHER' UNCERTAIN. [Lect. V. 

weight ; to destroy its force there is needed some- 
thing more than the exhibition of a certain number 
of " difficulties and improbabilities," such as continu- 
ally present themselves to the historic student in 
connexion even with his very best materials (72). 

The date and author of the book of Esther are 
points of very great uncertainty. The Jews in gene- 
ral ascribe it to Mordecai ; but some say that it was 
written by the High Priest, Joiakim ; while others 
assign the composition to the Great Synagogue (73). 
It appears from an expression at the close of the 
ninth chapter — " And the decree of Esther confirmed 
these matters of Purira, and it was written in the 
book" — that the whole affair was put on record at 
once; but "the book" here spoken of is probably 
that " book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media 
and Persia," d which had been mentioned more than 
once in the earlier part of the narrative. 6 To this 
work the actual writer of our book of Esther — who- 
ever he may have been — evidently had access ; and 
it is a reasonable supposition that in the main he 
follows his Persian authority. Hence probably that 
omission of the name of God, and of the distinctive 
tenets of the Israelites, which has been made an 
objection by some to the canonicity of this book (74). 

We have now to examine the narrative contained 
in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, by the light which 
profane history throws on it, more particularly in 
respect of those points which have been illustrated 
by recent discoveries. 

c Esther ix. 32. u Ibid. x. 2. ° Ibid. ii. 23 ; and vi. I. 



Lect. Y.] god acknowledged in peksian deceees. 143 

There are few things probably more surprising 
to the intelligent student of Scripture than the reli- 
gious tone of the proclamations which are assigned 
in Ezra to Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. " The 
Lord God of heaven" says Cyrus, " hath given me all 
the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath charged me 
to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in 
Judah. Who is there among you of all his people ? 
His God be with him, and let him go up to Jeru- 
salem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the 
Lord God of Israel (he is the God) which is in Jeru- 
salem.'^ " I make a decree," says Darius, " that 
these men be not hindered . . . that which they have 
need of . . . for the burnt-offerings of the God of heaven 
... let it be given them day by day without fail ; that 
they may offer sacrifices of sweet savours unto the 
God of heaven, and pray for Hie life of the king and of 
his sons." g "Artaxerxes, king of kings/' writes 
that monarch, "unto Ezra the priest, the scribe of 
the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at 
such a time . . . Whatsoever is commanded by the 
God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house 
of the God of heaven ; for why should there be wrath 
against the realm of the Icing and his sons ? " h Two 
things are especially remarkable in these passages — 
first, the strongly-marked religious character, very 
unusual in heathen documents ; and secondly, the 
distinctness with which they assert the unity of God, 
and thence identify the God of the Persians with the 



' Ezra i. 2, 3. Compare 2 
Citron, xxxvi. 23. 



g Ezra. vi. 8-10. 
h Ibid. vii. 12, 23. 



14:4 RELIGIOUS SPIRIT OF PERSIAN INSCRIPTIONS. [Lect. V. 

God of the Jews. Both these points receive abun- 
dant illustration from the Persian cuneiform inscrip- 
tions, in which the recognition of a single supreme 
God, Ormazd, and the clear and constant ascription 
to him of the direction of all mundane affairs, are 
leading features. In all the Persian monuments of 
any length, the monarch makes the acknowledgment 
that " Ormazd has bestowed on him his empire." 
(75). Every success that is gained is "by the grace 
of Ormazd." The name of Ormazd occurs in almost 
every other paragraph of the Behistun inscription. 
No public monuments with such a pervading reli- 
gious spirit have ever been discovered among the 
records of any heathen nation as those of the Persian 
kings ; and through all of them, down to the time of 
Artaxerxes Ochus, the name of Ormazd stands alone 
and unapproachable, as that of the Supreme Lord of 
earth and heaven. The title " Lord of Heaven," 
which runs as a sort of catchword through these 
Chaldee translations of the Persian records, is not 
indeed in the cuneiform monuments distinctly at- 
tached to him as an epithet ; but the common formula 
wherewith inscriptions open sets him forth as " the 
great God Ormazd, who gave both earth and heaven 
to mankind" (76). 

It is generally admitted that the succession of the 
Persian kings from Cyrus to Darius Hystaspis is 
correctly given in Ezra (77). The names of the two 
intermediate monarchs are indeed replaced by others 
— and it is difficult to explain how these kings came 
to be known to the Jews as Ahasuerus and Arta- 



Lect. V.] CHAKACTEE OF THE PSEUDO-SMEEDIS. 145 

xerxes, instead of Cambyses and Smerdis (78) — but 
the exact agreement in the number of the reigns 
and the harmony in the chronology (79) have caused 
it to be almost universally allowed that Cambyses 
and Smerdis are intended. Assuming this, we may 
note that the only Persian king who is said to have 
interrupted the building of the temple is that Magian 
monarch, the Pseudo-Smerdis, who was opposed to 
the pure Persian religion, and who would therefore 
have been likely to reverse the religious policy of his 
predecessors. The Samaritans " weakened the hands 
of the people of Judah and troubled them in build- 
ing" 1 during the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses ; but 
it was not till the letter of the Pseudo-Smerdis was 
received, that " the work of the house of God ceased." j 
The same prince, that is, who is stated in the inscrip- 
tions to have changed the religion of Persia (80), 
appears in Ezra as the opponent of a religious work, 
which Cyrus had encouraged, and Cambyses had 
allowed to be carried on. 

The reversal by Darius of the religious policy of 
the Magian monarch, and his recurrence to the line 
of conduct which had been pursued by Cyrus, as 
related in Ezra, harmonises completely with the 
account which Darius himself gives of his proceed- 
ings soon after his accession. " I restored to the 
people," he says, " the religious worship, of which 
the Magian had deprived them. As it was before, so 
I arranged it" (81). Of course, this passage refers 
primarily to the Persian Court religion, and its re- 

1 Ezra iv. 4. j Ibid, verse 24. 



146 BREAK IN THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE. [Leot. Y. 

establishment in the place of Magism as the religion 
of the state ; but such a return to comparatively pure 
principles would involve a renewal of the old sym- 
pathy with the Jews and with the worship of Jehovab. 
Accordingly, while tbe letter of the Magus k is devoid 
of the slightest reference to religion, that of Darius 
exhibits — as has been already shewn — the same pious 
and reverential spirit, the same respect for the G-od 
of the Jews, and the same identification of Him with 
the Supreme Being recognised by the Persians, which 
are so prominent in the decree of Cyrus. Darius is 
careful to follow in the footsteps of the great founder 
of the monarchy, and under him " the house of God 
at Jerusalem, 55 which Cyrus was " charged 5 ' to build, 1 
is finally " builded and finished." 01 

A break occurs in the Biblical narrative between 
the sixth and seventh chapters of Ezra, the length 
of which is not estimated by the sacred historian, 
but which we know from profane sources to have 
extended to above half a century (82). Into this 
interval falls the whole of the reign of Xerxes. The 
Jews in Palestine appear to have led during this 
time a quiet and peaceable life under Persian gover- 
nors, and to have disarmed the hostility of their 
neighbours by unworthy compliances, such as inter- 
marriages ; n which would have tended, if unchecked, 
to destroy their distinct nationality. No history of 
the time is given, because no event occurred during 
it of any importance to the Jewish community in 

k Ezra iv. 17 to 22. ' Ibid. i. 2. m Ibid. vi. 14. 

n Ibid. ix. 2, &c. 



Lect. V.] AHASUERUS IDENTICAL WITH XERXES. 147 

Palestine. It is thought, however, by many — and 
on the whole it is not improbable — that the history 
related in the Book of Esther belongs to the interval 
in question, and thus fills up the gap in the narra- 
tive of Ezra. The name Ahasuerus is undoubtedly 
the proper Hebrew equivalent for the Persian word 
which the Greeks represented by Xerxes (83). And 
if it was Kish, the ancestor of Mordecai in the fourth 
degree, who was carried away from Jerusalem by 
Nebuchadnezzar, together with Jeconiah, the time 
of Xerxes would be exactly that in which Mordecai 
ought to have flourished (84). Assuming on these 
grounds the king intended by Ahasuerus to be the 
Xerxes of Greek history, we are at once struck with 
the strong resemblance which his character bears to 
that assigned by the classical writers to the cele- 
brated son of Darius. Proud, self-willed, amorous, 
careless of contravening Persian customs ; reckless 
of human life, yet not actually bloodthirsty ; impe- 
tuous, facile, changeable — the Ahasuerus of Esther 
corresponds in all respects to the Greek portraiture 
of Xerxes, which is not (be it observed) the mere 
picture of an Oriental despot, but has various pecu- 
liarities which distinguish it even from the other 
Persian kings, and which — I think it may be said — 
individualise it. Nor is there — as might so easily 
have been the case, were the book of Esther a 
romance — any contradiction between its facts and 
those which the ' Greeks have recorded of Xerxes. 
The third year of his reign, when Ahasuerus makes 

° Esther ii. 5, 6. 

L 2 



148 HARMONY WITH GREEK HISTORY. [Lect. V. 

his great feast at Shushan (or Susa) to his nobles, p 
was a year which Xerxes certainly passed at Susa 
(85), and one wherein it is likely that he kept open 
house for " the princes of the provinces," who would 
from time to time visit the court, in order to report 
on the state of their preparations for the Greek war. 
The seventh year, wherein Esther is made queen, q 
is that which follows the return of Xerxes from 
Greece, where again we know from the best Greek 
authority (86) that he resumed his residence at Susa. 
It is true that " after this time history speaks of 
other favourites and another wife of Xerxes, namely 
Amestris" (87), who can scarcely have been Esther 
(88), since the Greeks declare that she was the 
daughter of a Persian noble ; — but it is quite pos- 
sible that Amestris may have been in disgrace for a 
time, and that Esther may have been temporarily 
advanced to the dignity of Sultana. We know far 
too little of the domestic history of Xerxes from 
profane sources to pronounce the position which 
Esther occupies in his harem impossible or impro- 
bable. True again that profane history tells us 
nothing of Haman or Mordecai — but we have 
absolutely no profane information on the subject of 
who were the great officers of the Persian court, or 
who had influence with Xerxes after the death of 
Mardonius. 

The intimate acquaintance which the Book of 
Esther shows in many passages with Persian man- 
ners and customs has been acknowledged even by 
De Wette (89), who regards it as composed in 
* Esther i. 2, 3. q Ibid. ii. 16. 



Lect. V.] JEWS' MASSACKE OF THEIR ENEMIES. 149 

Persia on that account. I think it may be said that 
we have nowhere else so graphic or so just a por- 
traiture of the Persian court, such as it was in the 
earlier part of the period of decline, which followed 
upon the death of Darius. The story of the Book 
is no doubt in its leading features — the contemplated 
massacre of the Jews, and the actual slaughter of 
their adversaries — wonderful and antecedently im- 
probable ; but these are exactly the points of which 
the commemorative festival of Purim is the strongest 
possible corroboration. And it may lessen the seem- 
ing improbability to bear in mind that open mas- 
sacres of obnoxious persons were not unknown to the 
Persians of Xerxes' time. There had once been a 
general massacre of all the Magi who could be found 
(90) ; and the annual observance of this day, which 
was known as "the Magophonia," would serve to 
keep up the recollection of the circumstance. 

Of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son and succes- 
sor of Xerxes, who appears both from his name and 
from his time to be the monarch under whom Ezra 
and Nehemiah flourished (91), we have little infor- 
mation from profane sources. His character, as 
drawn by Ctesias, is mild but weak (92), and suffi- 
ciently harmonises with the portrait in the first 
chapter of Nehemiah. He reigned 40 years — a 
longer time than any Persian king but one ; and it 
is perhaps worthy of remark that Nehemiah men- 
tions his 32 nd year ; r for this, which is allowable in 
his case, would have involved a contradiction of pro- 
fane history, had it occurred in connexion with any 

1 Nehein. v. 14; xiii. 6. 



150 CLOSE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. [Lect. V. 

other Persian king mentioned in Scripture, except- 
ing only Darius Hystaspis. 

The Old Testament history here terminates. For 
the space of nearly 500 years — from the time of 
Nehemiah and Malachi to that of St. Paul — the 
Jews possessed no inspired writer ; and their his- 
tory, when recorded at all, was related in works 
which were not regarded by themselves as authori- 
tative or canonical. I am not concerned to defend 
the historical accuracy of the Books of Maccabees ; 
much less that of Judith and the second Esdras, 
which seem to be mere romances (93). My task, so 
far as the Old Testament is concerned, is accom- 
plished. It has, I believe, been shown, in the first 
place, that the sacred narrative itself is the produc- 
tion of eye-witnesses, or of those who followed the 
accounts of eye-witnesses, and therefore that it is 
entitled to the acceptance of all those who regard 
contemporary testimony as the main ground of all 
authentic history. And it has, secondly, been made 
apparent, that all the evidence which we possess 
from profane sources of a really important and trust- 
worthy character, tends to confirm the truth of the 
history delivered to us in the sacred volume. The 
monumental records of past ages — Assyrian, Babylo- 
nian, Egyptian, Persian, Phoenician — the writings 
of historians who have based their histories on con- 
temporary annals, as Manetho, Berosus, Dius, Me- 
nander, Nicolas of Damascus — the descriptions given 
by eye-witnesses of the Oriental manners and cus- 
toms — the proofs obtained by modern research of 
the condition of art in the time and country — all 



Lect. V.] SUMMAKY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PERIOD. 151 

combine to confirm, illustrate, and establish the vera- 
city of the writers, who have delivered to us, in the 
Pentateuch, in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and 
Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, and Nehemiah, the history 
of the chosen people. That history stands firm 
against all the assaults made upon it ; and the more 
light that is thrown by research and discovery upon 
the times and countries with which it deals, the 
more apparent becomes its authentic and matter-of- 
fact character. Instead of ranging parallel with the 
mythical traditions of Greece and Rome (with which 
some delight to compare it), it stands, at the least, on 
a par with the ancient histories of Egypt, Babylon, 
Phoenicia, and Assyria ; which, like it, were re- 
corded from a remote antiquity by national historio- 
graphers. Sound criticism finds in the sacred writ- 
ings of the Jews documents belonging to the times 
of which they profess to treat, and on a calm investi- 
gation classes them, not with romantic poems or 
mythological fables, but with the sober narratives of 
those other ancient writers, who have sought to 
hand down to posterity a true account of the facts 
which their eyes have witnessed. As in the New 
Testament, so in the Old, that which the writers 
" declare " to the world is in the main " that which 
they have heard, which they have seen with their 
eyes, which they have looked upon, and which their 
hands have handled." s It is not their object to 
amuse men, much less to impose on them by any 
" cunningly devised fables ;" * but simply to record 
facts and "bear their witness to the truth." 11 

s 1 John i. 1. * 2 Pet. i. 16. " John xviii. 37. 



152 



[Lect. VI. 



LECTURE VI. 



1 John I. 1-3. 

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, 
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked 
upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of Life ; 
{for the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and 
bear witness, and shew unto you that Eternal Life, which 
was with the Father, and was manifested unto us ;) that 
which we have seen and heard declare we unto you. 

The period of time embraced by the events of 
wbich we have any mention in the New Testament 
but little exceeds the lifetime of a man, falling short 
of a full century. The regular and continuous his- 
tory is comprised within a yet narrower space, since 
it commences in the year of Rome 748 or 749, and 
terminates about sixty-three years later, in the fifth 
of Nero, Anno Domini 58 (1). If uniformity of plan 
were a thing of paramount importance, it would be 
my duty to subdivide this space of time into three 
portions, which might be treated separately in the 
three remaining Lectures of the present course. Such 
a subdivision could be made without any great diffi- 
culty. The century naturally breaks into three 
periods — the time of our Lord's life, or that treated of 
in the Gospels ; the time of the rapid and triumphant 
spread of Christianity, or that of which we have the 
history in the Acts ; and the time of oppression and 
persecution without, of defection and heresy within, 



Lect. VI.] NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE THREEFOLD. 153 

or that to which we have incidental allusions in the 
later Epistles and the Apocalypse. Or, if we con- 
fined our view to the space of time which is covered 
by the historical Books, and omitted the last of these 
three periods from our consideration, we might obtain 
a convenient division of the second period from the 
actual arrangement of the Acts, where the author, 
after occupying himself during twelve chapters with 
the general condition of the Christian community, be- 
comes from the thirteenth the biographer of a single 
Apostle, whose career he thenceforth follows without 
interruption. But on the whole I think it will be 
more convenient, at some sacrifice of uniformity, to 
regard the entire space occupied by the New Testa- 
ment narrative as a single period, and to substitute, 
at the present point, for the arrangement of time 
hitherto followed, an arrangement based upon a 
division of the evidence, which here naturally sepa- 
rates into three heads or branches. The first of these 
is the internal evidence, or that of the documents 
themselves, which 1 propose to make the subject of 
the present Lecture ; the second is the testimony of 
adversaries, or that borne by Heathen and Jewish 
writers to the veracity of the narrative ; the third is 
the testimony of believers, or that producible from 
the uninspired Christian remains of the times con- 
temporary with or immediately following the age of 
the Apostles. The two last-named branches will 
be treated respectively in the seventh and eighth 
Lectures. 

The New Testament is commonly regarded too 



154 SCOPE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Lect. VI. 

much as a single book, and its testimony is scarcely 
viewed as more than that of a single writer. No 
doubt, contemplated on its divine side, the work has 
a real unity, He who is with His church " always " a 
having designed the whole in His Eternal Counsels, 
and having caused it to take the shape that it bears ; 
but regarded as the work of man, which it also is, 
the New Testament (it should be remembered) is a 
collection of twenty-seven separate and independent 
documents, composed by eight or nine different per- 
sons, at separate times, and under varied circum- 
stances. Of these twenty-seven documents twenty- 
one consist of letters written by those who were en- 
gaged in the propagation of the new Religion to their 
converts, four are biographies of Christ, one is a short 
Church History, containing a general account of the 
Christian community for 12 or 13 years after our 
Lord's ascension, together with a particular account 
of St. Paul's doings for about 14 years afterwards ; 
and one is prophetical, containing (as is generally 
supposed) a sketch of the future state and condition 
of the Christian Church from the close of the first 
century, when it was written, to the end of the 
world. It is with the historical Books that we are 
in the present review primarily concerned. I wish 
to shew that for the Scriptural narrative of the birth, 
life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, as 
well as for the circumstances of the first preaching of 
the Gospel, the historical evidence that we possess is 
of an authentic and satisfactory character. 
a Matt, xxviii. 20. 



Lect. VI.] RATIONALISTIC OBJECTIONS OF STRAUSS. 155 

As with that document which is the basis of Ju- 
daism (2), so with those which are the basis of 
Christianity, it is of very great interest and im- 
portance to know by whom they were written. If 
the history was recorded by eye-witnesses, or even 
by persons contemporaneous with the events nar- 
rated, then it is allowed on all hands that the record 
containing it must have a very strong claim indeed 
to our acceptance. " But . the alleged ocular tes- 
timony ," we are told, " or proximity in point of time 
to the events recorded, is mere assumption — an as- 
sumption originating from the titles which the Biblical 
books bear in our Canon" (3). " Little reliance, 
however, can be placed on these titles, or on the 
headings of ancient manuscripts generally " (4). " The 
early Jewish and Christian writers — even the most 
reputable — published their works with the substi- 
tution of venerated names, without an idea that they 
were guilty of falsehood or deception by so doing" 
(5). In " sacred records " and " biblical books " this 
species of forgery obtained " more especially " (6) ; 
and the title of works of this kind is scarcely any 
evidence at all of the real authorship. Further, the 
actual titles of our Grospels are not to be regarded as 
intended to assert the composition of the Gospel by 
the person named ; all that they mean to assert is, 
the composition of the connected history " after the 
oral discourses, or notes," of the person named in the 
title. This is the true original meaning of the word 
translated by " according to " ; which is improperly 
understood as implying actual authorship (7). 



156 THE INTEGRITY OF THE TITLES. [Lect. VI. 

Such are the assertions with which we are met, 
when we urge that for the events of our Lord's life 
we have the testimony of eye-witnesses, whose means 
of knowing the truth were of the highest order, and 
whose honesty is unimpeachable. These assertions 
(which I have given as nearly as possible in the 
words of Strauss), consist of a series of positions 
either plainly false, or at best without either proof or 
likelihood ; yet upon these the modern Rationalism 
is content to base its claim to supersede Christianity. 
This end it openly avows, and it admits that, to make 
its claim good, the positions above given should be 
established. Let us then consider briefly the several 
assertions upon which we are invited to exchange the 
Religion of Christ for that of Strauss and his 
followers. 

It is said, that " the alleged ocular testimony is an 
assumption originating from the titles which the 
Biblical books bear in our Canon." I do not know if 
any stress is intended to be laid on the last clause of 
this objection ; but as it might mislead the unlearned, 
I may observe in passing, that the titles which the 
Books bear in the modern authorized versions of the 
Scriptures are literal translations from some of the 
most ancient Greek manuscripts, and descend to us 
at least from the times of the first Councils; while 
titles still more emphatic and explicit are found in 
several of the versions which were made at an early 
period (8). Our belief in the authorship of the 
writings, no doubt, rests partly on the titles, as does 
our belief in the authorship of every ancient treatise ; 



Lect.VL] contemporary quotation of the gospels. 157 

but it is untrue to say that these headings first ori- 
ginated the belief; for before the titles were attached 
the belief must have existed. In truth, there is not 
the slightest pretence for insinuating that there was 
ever any doubt as to the authorship of any one of the 
historical books of the New Testament ; which are as 
uniformly ascribed to the writers whose names they 
bear as the Eeturn of the Ten Thousand to Xenophon, 
or the Lives of the Caesars to Suetonius. There is 
indeed far better evidence of authorship in the case of 
the four Gospels and of the Acts of the Apostles, than 
exists with respect to the works of almost any classical 
writer. It is a very rare occurrence for classical 
works to be distinctly quoted, or for their authors to 
be mentioned by name, within a century of the time 
of their publication (9). The Gospels, as we shall 
find in the sequel, are frequently quoted within this 
period, and the writers of three at least out of the 
four are mentioned within the time as authors of 
works corresponding perfectly to those which have 
come down to us as their compositions. Our con- 
viction then of the genuineness of the Gospels does 
not rest exclusively, or even mainly, on the titles, but 
on the unanimous consent of ancient writers and of 
the whole Christian church in the first ages. 

In the next place we are told that " little reliance 
can be placed on the headings of ancient manuscripts 
generally." Undoubtedly, such headings, when un- 
confirmed by further testimony, are devoid of any 
great weight, and may be set aside, if the internal 
evidence of the writings themselves disproves the 



158 OBJECTIONS TO THE HEADINGS. [Lect. VI. 

superscription. Still they constitute important prima 
facie evidence of authorship ; and it is to be presumed 
that they are correct, until solid reasons be shewn to 
the contrary. The headings of ancient manuscripts 
are, in point of fact, generally accepted as correct by 
critics ; and the proportion, among the works of an- 
tiquity, of those reckoned spurious to those regarded 
as genuine, is small indeed. 

But it is said that in the case of " sacred records " 
and " biblical books " the headings are " especially " 
untrustworthy. This, we are told, " is evident, and has 
long since been proved " (10). Where the proof is to 
be found we are not informed, nor whence the pecu- 
liar untrustworthiness of what is " sacred " and 
"biblical" proceeds. We are referred however to 
the cases of the Pentateuch, the book of Daniel, and 
a certain number of the Psalms, as well known 
instances ; and we shall probably not be wrong in 
assuming that these are selected as the most palpable 
cases of incorrect ascription of books which the 
Sacred Yolume furnishes. We have already found 
reason to believe that in regard to the Pentateuch 
and the book of Daniel no mistake has been com- 
mitted (1 1) ; they are the works of the authors whose 
names they bear. But in the case of the Psalms, it 
must be allowed that the headings seem frequently 
to be incorrect. Headings, it must be remembered, are 
in no case any part of the inspired Word ; they indi- 
cate merely the opinion of those who had the custody 
of the Word at the time when they were prefixed. 
Now in most cases the headings would be attached 
soon after the composition of the work, when its 



Lect. VI.] CHARGE OF "PIOUS FRAUDS." 159 

authorship was certainly known ; but the Psalms do 
not appear to have been collected into a book until 
the time of Ezra (12), and the headings of many may 
have been then first affixed, those who attached them 
following a vague tradition or venturing upon con- 
jecture. Thus error has here crept in ; but on this 
ground to assume that " sacred records " have a pe- 
culiar untrustworthiness in this respect, is to betray 
an irreligious spirit, and to generalise upon very 
insufficient data. 

But, it is said, " the most reputable authors amongst 
the Jews and early Christians published their works 
with the substitution of venerated names, without an 
idea that they were guilty of falsehood or deception 1 
by so doing." What is the proof of this astounding 
assertion ? What early Christian authors, reputable or 
no, can be shewn to have thus acted ? If the allusion 
is to the epistles of Hermas and Barnabas, it must be 
observed that the genuineness of these is still matter 
of dispute among the learned ; if to such works as the 
Clementines^ the interpolated Ignatius, and the like, 
that they are not " early" in the sense implied, for they 
belong probably to the third century (13). The prac- 
tice noted was common among heretical sects from the 
first, but it was made a reproach to them by the ortho- 
dox (14) ; who did not themselves adopt it till the 
teaching of the Alexandrian School had confused the 
boundaries of right and wrong, and made " pious 
frauds " appear defensible. There is no reason to sup- 
pose that any orthodox Christian of the first century 
— when it is granted that our Gospels were written — 
would have considered himself entitled to bring out 



160 DOUBTS AS TO AUTHOESHIP. [Lect. VI. 

under a " venerated name " a work of his own com- 
position. 

Lastly, it is urged, "the titles of our Gospels are 
not intended to assert the composition of the works 
by the persons named, but only their being based 
upon a groundwork furnished by such persons, either 
orally, or in the shape of written notes " (15). "This 
seems to be the original meaning attached to the 
word Kara," we are told. No example however is 
adduced of this use, which is certainly not that of the 
Septuagint, where the book of Nehemiah is referred 
to under the name of " The Commentaries according 
to Nehemiah" (Kara rbv Neeyu/ay); b and it cannot be 
shewn to have obtained at any period of the Greek 
language. 

It cannot therefore be asserted with any truth that 
the titles of the Gospels do not represent them as the 
compositions of the persons named therein. Nothing 
is more certain than that the object of affixing titles 
to the Gospels at all was to mark the opinion enter- 
tained of their authorship. This opinion appears to 
have been universal. We find no evidence of any 
doubt having ever existed on the subject in the early 
ages (16). Irenseus, Tertullian, Clement of Alex- 
dria, and Origen, writers in the latter half of the 
second, or the beginning of the third century, not 
only declare the authorship unreservedly, but indicate 
or express the universal agreement of the Church 
from the first upon the subject (17). Justin, in the 
middle of the second century, speaks of the " Gospels " 
b 2 Mac. ii. 13. 



Lect. VI.] INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPELS. 16 L 

which the Christians read in their Churches, as hav- 
ing been composed " by the Apostles of Christ and 
their companions ;" and he further shews by his quo- 
tations, which are abundant, that he means the 
Gospels now in our possession (18). Papias, a 
quarter of a century earlier, mentions the Gospels of 
St. Matthew and St. Mark as authoritative, and de- 
clares the latter writer to have derived his materials 
from St. Peter. Thus we are brought to the very 
age of the Apostles themselves ; for Papias was a 
disciple of St. John the Evangelist (19). 

Further, in the case of three out of the five His- 
torical Books of the New Testament, there is an in- 
ternal testimony to their composition by contem- 
poraries, which is of the last importance. " And he 
that saw it" says St. John, " bare record, and his 
record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, 
that ye may believe." And again, still more expli- 
citly, after speaking of himself and of the circum- 
stances which caused it to be thought that he would 
not die — " This is the disciple which testifieth of these 
things and wrote these things : and we know that his 
testimony is true." d Either therefore St. John must 
be allowed to have been the writer of the fourth 
Gospel, or the writer must be taxed with that " con- 
scious intention of fiction," which Strauss with impious 
boldness has ventured to allege against him (20). 

That the Acts of the Apostles and the third 
Gospel have "a testimony of a particular kind," 
which seems to give them a special claim to be 

c John xix. 35. d Ibid. xxi. 24. 

M 



162 AUTHORSHIP OF THE 'ACTS/ [Lect. VI. 

accepted as the works of a contemporary, is admitted 
even by this Prince of Sceptics. The writer of the 
Acts, he allows, " by the use of the first person 
identifies himself with the companion of St. Paul," 
and the prefaces of the two books make it plain that 
they " proceeded from the same author " (21). 
This evidence is felt to be so strong, that even 
Strauss does not venture to deny that a companion 
of St. Paul may have written the two works. He 
finds it " difficult " to believe that this was actually 
the case, and " suspects " that the passages of the 
Acts where the first person is used "belong to a 
distinct memorial by another hand, which the author 
of the Acts has incorporated into his history." But 
still he allows the alternative — that "it is possible 
the companion of Paul may have composed the two 
works " — only it must have been " at a time when 
he was no longer protected by apostolic influence 
from the tide of tradition," and so was induced to 
receive into his narrative, and join with what he had 
heard from the apostle, certain marvellous (and there- 
fore incredible) stories which had no solid or substan- 
tial basis (22). To the objection that the Acts 
appear, from the fact of their terminating where 
they do, to have been composed at the close of St. 
Paul's first imprisonment at Eome, A.D. 58 (or A.D. 
63, according to some (23) writers), and that the 
Gospel, as being "the former treatise" 6 , was written 
earlier, Strauss replies, " that the breaking oif of the 
Acts at that particular point might have been the 

e Acts i. 1. 



Lect. VI.] FIRST THREE GOSPELS UNIFORM. 163 

result of many other causes ; and that, at all events, 
such testimony standing alone is wholly insufficient to 
decide the historical worth of the Gospel " (24). He 
thus assumes that the testimony " stands alone," 
forgetting or ignoring the general voice of antiquity 
on the subject of the date and value of the Gospel 
(25), while he also omits to notice the other impor- 
tant evidence of an early date which the Gospel 
itself furnishes — the declaration, namely, in the pre- 
face, that what St. Luke wrote was delivered to 
him by those " which from the beginning were eye- 
witnesses and ministers of the Word„" f 

If the third Gospel be allowed to have been com- 
posed by one who lived in the apostolic age and 
companied with the apostles, then an argument for 
the early date of the first and second will arise from 
their accordance with the third — their resemblance 
to it in style and general character, and their diver- 
sity from the productions of any other period. The 
first three Gospels belong so entirely to the same 
school of thought, and the same type and stage of 
language, that on critical grounds they must be 
regarded as the works of contemporaries ; while in 
their contents they are at once so closely accordant 
with one another, and so full of little differences, 
that the most reasonable view to take of their com- 
position is that it was almost simultaneous (26). 
Thus the determination of any one out of the three 
to the apostolic age involves a similar conclusion 
with respect to the other two ; and if the Gospel 

f Luke i. 2. 

M 2 



164 THE EVANGELISTS FULLY ATTESTED. [Lect, VT. 

.ascribed to St. Luke be allowed to be probably his, 
there can be no reason to question the tradition 
which assigns the others to St. Matthew and St. 
Mark. 

On the whole, therefore, we have abundant reason 
to believe that the four Gospels are the works of 
persons who lived at the time when Christianity was 
first preached and established. Two of the writers— 
St. Luke and St. John — fix their own date, which 
must be accepted on their authority, unless we will 
pronounce them impostors. The two others appear 
alike by their matter and their manner to be as 
early as St. Luke, and are certainly earlier than St. 
John, whose Gospel is supplemental to the other 
three, and implies their pre-existence. Nor is there 
any reasonable ground for doubting the authorship 
which Christian antiquity with one voice declares to 
us, and in which the titles of the earliest manuscripts 
and of the most ancient versions agree. The four 
Gospels are assigned to those four persons, whom 
the Church has always honoured as Evangelists, on 
grounds very much superior to those on which the 
bulk of classical w^orks are ascribed to particular 
authors. The single testimony of Irenseus is really 
of more weight than the whole array of witnesses 
commonly marshalled in proof of the genuineness of 
an ancient classic ; and, even if it stood alone, might 
fairly be regarded as placing the question of the 
authorship beyond all reasonable doubt or suspicion. 
If then the Gospels are genuine, what a wonder- 
ful historical treasure do we possess in them ! Four 



Lect. VI'.] PLUKALITY OF GOSPELS PKOVIDENTIAL. 165 

biographies of the great Founder of our religion by 
contemporary pens, two of them the productions of 
close friends — the other two written by those who, 
if they had no personal acquaintance with the 
Saviour, at least were the constant companions of 
such as had had intimate knowledge of Him. How 
rarely do we obtain even two distinct original 
biographies of a distinguished person ! In the pecu- 
liar and unexampled circumstances of the time it is 
not surprising that many undertook to " set forth in 
order a declaration of the things" 5 which constituted 
the essence of the new religion, namely, the life and 
teaching of Christ ; but it is remarkable, and I think 
it may fairly be said to be providential, that four 
accounts should have been written possessing claims 
to attention so nearly equal, that the Church felt 
bound to adopt all into her Canon, whence it has 
happened that they have all come down to us. We 
should have expected, alike on the analogy of the 
Old Testament (27), and on grounds of a priori 
probability, a single record. If an authentic account 
had been published early — that is, before the separa- 
tion of the Apostles, and the formation of distinct 
Christian communities — it is probable that no second 
account would have been written, or at any rate no 
second account confirmatory to any great extent of the 
preceding one. A supplementary Gospel, like that 
of St. John, might of course have been added in any 
case ; but had the Gospel of St. Matthew, for instance, 
been really composed, as some have imagined (28), 

g Lukei. 1, 



V 



166 ORIGIN OF THE WRITTEN GOSPELS. [Lect. VI. 

within a few years of our Lord's ascension, it would 
have been carried, together with Christianity, into 
all parts of the world; and it is very unlikely 
that in that case the Gospels of St. Mark and St. 
Luke, which cover chiefly the same ground, would 
have been written. The need of written Gospels 
was not felt at first, while the Apostles and com- 
panions of Christ were in full vigour, and were 
continually moving from place to place, relating 
with all the fulness and variety of oral discourse the 
marvels which they had seen wrought, and the gracious 
words which they had heard uttered by their Master. 
But as they grew old, and as the sphere of their labours 
enlarged, and personal superintendence of the whole 
Church by the Apostolic body became difficult, the de- 
sire to possess a written Gospel arose ; and simultane- 
ously, in different parts of the Church, for different por- 
tions of the Christian body, the three Gospels of St. 
Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, were published. 
This at least seems to be the theory which alone suits 
the phenomena of the case (29) ; and as it agrees nearly 
with the testimony of Irenaeus (30), who is the earliest 
authority with regard to the time at which the Gos- 
pels were composed, it is well deserving of acceptance. 
If this view of the independent and nearly simul- 
taneous composition of the first three Gospels be 
admitted, then we must be allowed to possess in 
substantial agreement respecting the life, character, 
their teaching, miracles, prophetic announcements, 
sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension of 
our Lord (31), evidence of the most important 



Lect. VI.] OMISSIONS DO NOT IMPLY NEGATIVES. 167 

kind, and such as is scarcely ever attainable with 
respect to the actions of an individual. Attempts 
have been made from time to time, and recently on a 
large scale, to invalidate this testimony by establish- 
ing the existence of minute points of disagreement 
between the accounts of the three Evangelists (32). 
But the differences adduced consist almost entirely 
of omissions by one Evangelist of what is mentioned 
by another, such omissions being regarded by Strauss 
as equivalent to direct negatives (33). The weak 
character of the argument a silentio is now admitted 
by all tolerable critics, who have ceased to lean upon 
it with any feeling of security except under very 
peculiar circumstances. In ordinary cases, and more 
particularly in cases where brevity has been studied, 
mere silence proves absolutely nothing ; and to make 
it equivalent to counter-assertion is to confuse two 
things wholly different, and to exhibit a want of 
critical discernment, such as must in the eyes of all 
reasonable persons completely discredit the writer 
who is so unfair or so ill -judging. Yet this, I confi- 
dently affirm, is the ordinary manner of Strauss, who 
throughout his volumes conceives himself at liberty 
to discard facts recorded by one Evangelist only, on 
the mere ground of silence on the part of the others. 
Whatever an Evangelist does not record he is 
argued not to have known ; and his want of know- 
ledge is taken as a proof that the event could not 
have happened. It seems to be forgotten, that, in 
the first place, eye-witnesses of one and the same 
event notice a different portion of the attendant 



168 GOSPEL FACTS INDEPENDENT OF CAVILS. [Lect. VI. 

circumstances ; and that, secondly, those who record 
an event which they have witnessed omit ordinarily, 
for brevity's sake, by far the greater portion of the 
attendant circumstances which they noticed at the 
time and still remember. Strauss's cavils could only 
have been precluded by the mere repetition on the 
part of each Evangelist of the exact circumstances 
mentioned by every other — a repetition which would 
have been considered to mark collusion or unac- 
knowledged borrowing, and which would have thus 
destroyed their value as distinct and independent 
witnesses. 

It has been well observed (34), that, even if all the 
difficulties and discrepancies, which this writer has 
thought to discover in the Gospels, were real and not 
merely apparent — if we were obliged to leave them 
as difficulties, and could offer no explanation of them 
(35) — still the general credibility of the Gospel His- 
tory would remain untouched, and no more would be 
proved than the absence of that complete inspiration 
which the Church has always believed to attach to 
the Evangelical writings. The writers would be 
lowered from their pre-eminent rank as perfect and 
infallible historians, whose every word may be de- 
pended on ; but they would remain historical autho- 
rities of the first order — witnesses as fully to be 
trusted for the circumstances of our Lord's life, as 
Xenophon for the sayings and doings of Socrates, or 
Cavendish for those of Cardinal Wolsey. The facts of 
the miracles, preaching, sufferings, death, resurrection, 
and ascension, would therefore stand firm, together 



Lect. VI.] GOSPELS CONFIKMED BY THE < ACTS.' 169 

with those of the choice of the Apostles, the com- 
mission given them, and the communication to them 
of miraculous powers ; and these are the facts which 
establish Christianity, and form its historical basis — 
a basis which can be overthrown by nothing short of 
a proof that the New Testament is a forgery from 
beginning to end, or that the first preachers of 
Christianity were a set of imposters. 

For the truth of the Gospel facts does not rest 
solely upon the Gospels — they are stated with almost 
equal distinctness in the Acts, and are implied in the 
Epistles. It is not denied that a companion of St. 
Paul may have written the account of the early 
spread of the Gospel which is contained in the Acts 
of the Apostles. But the Acts assume as indisputable 
the whole series of facts which form the basis on 
which Christianity sustains itself. They set forth 
"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God by mi- 
racles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him 
in the midst of you, as you yourselves also know " h — a 
man " who went about doing good, and healing all 
that were oppressed of the devil " i — who " beginning 
from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, 
published the word throughout all Judea;" j whom 
yet " they that dwelt at Jerusalem, and their rulers, 
because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the 
Prophets which are read every sabbath day, con- 
demned, finding no cause of death in him, yet desiring 
of Pilate that he should be slain" k — who was " taken 

h Acts ii. 22. \ Ibid. x. 38. J Ibid, verse 37. 

k Ibid. xiii. 27-8. 



170 TESTIMONY OF THE c ACTS/ [Lect. VI. 

and crucified by wicked hands" 1 — "hanged upon a 
tree and slain " m — then " taken down from the tree and 
laid in a sepulchre," n but " raised up the third day, 
and shewed openly," ° "by many infallible proofs 
during the space of forty days," p "not to all the 
people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, who 
did eat and drink with him after he rose from the 
dead" q — and who, finally, "while his disciples beheld, 
was taken up into heaven, a cloud receiving him out 
of their sight." r The Acts further shew that to the 
chosen " witnesses " — the Apostles to whom " the 
promise of the Father" 8 had been given, and to those 
whom they associated with them in the direction of 
the infant Church, miraculous gifts were commu- 
nicated, so that they prophesied, 1 cured lameness by a 
word or a touch , u spake languages of which they had 
no natural knowledge/ restored the bedridden to 
health , w handled serpents, x cast out devils, y inflicted 
blindness, 3 raised the dead to life, a and finally even 
in some cases cured men by the touch of their sha- 
dows b or by handkerchiefs and aprons from their 
persons. 

The substantial truth of the history contained in 
the Acts — so far at least as it concerns St. Paul — has 



1 Acts ii. 23. 
m Ibid. x. 39. 

n Ibid. xiii. 29. 

Ibid. x. 40. 
p Ibid. i. 3. 

1 Ibid. x. 41. 

' Ibid. i. 9, 10. 

6 Ibid, verse 4. 

1 Ibid. v. 9 : vi. 27, &c. 



u Acts xiv. 10, and iii. 7. 

v Ibid. ii. 4-13. 

w Ibid. ix. 34. 

x Ibid, xxviii. 5. 

y Ibid. xvi. 18, &c. 

z Ibid. xiii. 11. 

a Ibid. ix. 37-41 ; xx. 9-12. 

b Ibid. v. 15. 

c Ibid. xix. 12. 



Iect. VI.] TESTIMONY OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 171 

been excellently vindicated by a writer of our own 
nation and communion, from the undesigned con- 
formity between the narrative and the Epistles 
ascribed to the great Apostle. Without assuming 
the genuineness of those Epistles, Paley has most 
unanswerably shewn, that the peculiar nature of the 
agreement between them and the history of the Acts 
affords good reason to believe that " the persons and 
transactions described are real, the letters authentic, 
and the narration in the main true " (3 6). The Horce 
Paulince establish these positions in the most satis- 
factory manner. I do not think that it is possible 
for any one to read them attentively without coming 
to the conclusion that the Epistles of St. Paul and the 
Acts of the Apostles bring us into contact with real 
persons, real scenes, real transactions — that the letters 
were actually written by St. Paul himself at the time 
and under the circumstances related in the history — 
and that the history was composed by one who had 
that complete knowledge of the circumstances which 
could only be gained by personal observation, or by 
intimate acquaintance with the Apostle who is the 
chief subject of the narrative. The effect of a perusal 
of this masterly work will scarcely be neutralised by 
the bare and unsupported assertion of Strauss, that 
" the details concerning Paul in the Book of the Acts 
are so completely at variance with Paul's genuine 
epistles, that it is extremely difficult' to reconcile them 
with the notion that they were written by a com- 
panion of the Apostle" (37). The Horce Paulinos 
should have been answered in detail, before such an 



172 FREQUENCY OF UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. [Lect. VI. 

assertion was adventured on. Boldly and barely 
made, without a tittle of proof, it can only be regarded 
as an indication of the utter recklessness of the new 
School, and of its striking deficiency in the qualities 
which are requisite for a sound and healthy criticism. 

It is further to be remarked, that Paley 's work, ex- 
cellent and conclusive as it must be allowed to be, is 
far from being exhaustive. He has noticed, and 
illustrated in a very admirable way, the most remark- 
able of the undesigned coincidences between the Acts 
and the Pauline Epistles ; but it would not be difficult 
to increase his list by the addition of an equal 
number of similar points of agreement, which he has 
omitted (38). 

Again, it is to be remarked, that the argument of 
Paley is applicable also to other parts of the New 
Testament. Undesigned coincidences of the class 
which Paley notes are frequent in the Gospels, and 
have often been pointed out in passing by commen- 
tators, though I am not aware that they have ever 
been collected or made the subject of a separate 
volume. When St. Matthew, d however, and St. 
Luke, 6 in giving the list of the Apostles, place them 
in pairs without assigning a reason, while St. Mark, 
whose list is not in pairs/ happens to mention that 
they were sent out " two and two," g we have the 
same sort of recondite and (humanly speaking) acci- 
dental harmony on which Paley has insisted with 
such force as an evidence of authenticity and truth in 

d Matt. x. 2-4. c Luke vi. 14-16. f Mark iii. 16-19. 

g Ibid. vi. 7. 



Lect. VI.] TESTIMONY OF THE EPISTLES GENERALLY. 173 

connexion with the history of the Acts. It would be 
easy to multiply instances; but my limits will not 
allow me to do more than briefly to allude to this head 
of evidence, to which full justice could not be done 
unless by an elaborate work on the subject (39). 

Finally, let it be considered whether the Epistles 
alone, apart from the Gospels and the Acts, do not 
sufficiently establish the historic truth of that nar- 
rative of the life of Christ and foundation of the 
Christian Church, which it has been recently at- 
tempted to resolve into mere myth and fable. The 
genuineness of St. Paul's Epistles, with one or two 
exceptions, is admitted even by Strauss (40) ; and 
there are no valid reasons for entertaining any doubt 
concerning the authorship of the other Epistles, 
except perhaps in the case of that to the Hebrews, 
and of the two shorter Epistles commonly assigned 
to St. John (41). Excluding these, we have eighteen 
letters written by five of the principal Apostles of 
Christ, one by St. John, two by St. Peter, thirteen 
by St. Paul, one by St. James, and one by St. Jude, 
his brother — partly consisting of public addresses to 
bodies of Christians, partly of instructions to indivi- 
duals — all composed for practical purposes with 
special reference to the peculiar exigencies of the 
time, but all exhibiting casually and incidentally the 
state of opinion and belief among Christians during 
the half century immediately following our Lord's 
ascension. It is indisputable that the writers, and 
those to whom they wrote, believed in the recent oc- 
currence of a set of facts similar to, or identical with, 



174 GOSPEL FACTS ASSEETED IN THE EPISTLES. [Lect. VI, 

those recorded in the Gospels and the Acts — more 
particularly those which are most controverted, such 
as the transfiguration, the resurrection, and the 
ascension. " Great is the mystery of godliness," says 
St. Paul. " God was manifest in the flesh, justified 
in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gen- 
tiles, believed on in the world, received up into 
glory." h " Christ," says St. Peter, " suffered once for 
sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us 
to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened 
in the spirit." * " He received from God the Father 
honour and glory, when there came such a voice to 
him from the excellent glory, ' This is my beloved 
Son in whom I am well pleased ;' and this voice 
which came from heaven we heard, when we were 
with him in the holy mount." j " God raised up 
Christ from the dead, and gave him glory " k — " He is 
gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God, 
angels and authorities and powers being made subject 
to him." 1 " Eemember," again St. Paul says, " that 
Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the 
dead" m — " if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching 
vain, and your faith also is vain" n — " I delivered 
unto you first of all that which I also received, how 
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scrip- 
tures ; and that he was buried, and that he rose again 
the third day according to the Scriptures ; and that 
he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve — after that 



h 1 Tim. iii. 16. j 1 Pet. iii. 18. j 2 Pet. i. 17, 18. 

k 1 Pet. i. 21. ' Ibid. iii. 22 m 2 Tim. ii. 8. 

n 1 Cor. xv. 14. 



Lect. VI.] THE MYTHIC THEORY ABSURD. 175 

he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once 
. . . after that, he was seen of James, then of all the 
apostles." These are half-a-dozen texts out of hun- 
dreds, which might be adduced to shew that the 
writers of the Epistles, some writing before, some 
after the Evangelists, are entirely agreed with them 
as to the facts on which Christianity is based, and as 
strongly assert their reality. We are told, that " the 
Gospel myths grew up in the space of about thirty 
years, between the death of Jesus and the destruction 
of Jerusalem" (42). But in the Epistles and the Acts 
there is evidence that throughout the whole of this 
time the belief of the Church was the same — the 
Apostles themselves, the companions of Christ, main- 
tained from the first the reality of those marvellous 
events which the Evangelists have recorded — they 
proclaimed themselves the " witnesses of the resurrec- 
tion" p — appealed to the " miracles and signs " q which 
Jesus had wrought — and based their preaching alto- 
gether upon the facts of the Gospel narrative. There 
is.no historical ground for asserting that that narra- 
tive was formed by degrees ; nor is there any known 
instance of a mythic history having grown up in such 
an age, under such circumstances, or with such rapidity 
as is postulated in this case by our adversaries. The 
age was a historical age, being that of Dionysius, 
Diodorus, Livy, Yelleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Vale- 
rius Maximus, and Tacitus — the country was one 
where written records were kept, and historical lite- 
rature had long flourished ; it produced at the very 
° 1 Cor. xv. 3-7. p Acts i. 22 ; iv. 33, &c. «» Ibid. ii. 22, 



176 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORIC OR SPURIOUS. [Lect.VI. 

time when the New Testament documents were being 
written, a historian of good repute, Josephus, whose 
narrative of the events of his own time is universally 
accepted as authentic and trustworthy. To suppose 
that a mythology could be formed in such an age and 
country, is to confuse the characteristics of the most 
opposite periods — to ascribe to a time of luxury, over- 
civilisation, and decay, a phase of thought which only 
belongs to the rude vigour and early infancy of 
nations. 

There is in very deed no other alternative, if we 
reject the historic truth of the New Testament, than 
that embraced by the old assailants of Christianity — 
the ascription of the entire religion to imposture. 
The mythical explanation seems to have been in- 
vented in order to avoid this harsh conclusion, which 
the moral tone of the religion and the sufferings of 
its first propagators in defence of it alike contradict. 
The explanation fails, however, even in this respect ; 
for its great advocate finds it insufficient to explain 
the phenomena, and finally delivers it as his opinion, 
that in many places the authors of the Gospels con- 
sciously and designedly introduced fictions into their 
narratives (43) . If then we feel sure that in the books 
of the New Testament we have not the works of im- 
postors, testifying to have seen that which they had 
not seen, and knew that they had not seen ; if we are 
conscious in reading them of a tone of sincerity and 
truth beyond that of even the most veracious and 
simple-minded of profane writers ; if we recognise 
throughout an atmosphere of fact and reality, a har- 



Lect. VI.] CONCLUSION. 177 

mony of statement, a frequency of undesigned coinci- 
dence, an agreement like that of honest witnesses not 
studious of seeming to agree ; we must pronounce 
utterly untenable this last device of the sceptic, which 
presents even more difficulties than the old unbelief. 
We must accept the documents as at once genuine 
and authentic. The writers declare to us that which 
they have heard and seen. r They were believed by 
thousands of their contemporaries, on the spot where 
they stated the most remarkable of the events to have 
taken place, and within a few weeks of the time. 
They could not be mistaken as to those events. And 
if it be granted that these happened — if the resur- 
rection and ascension are allowed to be facts, then 
the rest of the narrative may well be received, for it 
is less marvellous. Yain are the " profane babblings," 
which ever " increase unto more ungodliness," of 
those whose " word doth eat like a canker . . . who 
concerning the truth have erred," — denying the resur- 
rection of Christ, and " saying that the resurrection" 
of man " is past already," thus "overthrowing the 
faith of some." 3 " The foundation of God standeth 
sure."* " Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised 
from the dead " u — Jesus Christ, the Grod-Man, is " as- 
cended into the heavens." v These are the cardinal 
points of the Christian's faith. On these credentials, 
which nothing can shake, he accepts as certain the 
divine mission of his Saviour. 

r 1 John i. 3. 9 2 Tim. ii. 16-18. l Ibid, verse 19. 
u Ibid, verse 8. v Acts ii. 34. 



N 



178 TLect. VII. 



LECTURE VII. 

2 Corinthians XIII. 1. 

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be 
established. 

The historical inquirer, on passing from the history 
of the Old Testament to that contained in the New, 
cannot fail to be struck with the remarkable contrast 
which exists between the two narratives in respect 
of their aim and character. In the Old Testament 
the writers seek to set before us primarily and 
mainly the history of their nation, and only seconda- 
rily and in strict subordination to this object intro- 
duce accounts of individuals (1). Their works fall 
under the head of History Proper — History, no 
doubt, of a peculiar cast, — not secular, that is, but 
sacred or theocratic, — yet still History in the strict- 
est sense of the term, — accounts of kings and rulers, 
and of the vicissitudes through which the Jewish 
nation passed, its sufferings, triumphs, checks, re- 
verses, its struggles, ruin, and recovery. In the 
Historical Books of the New Testament, on the 
contrary, these points cease altogether to engage the 
writers' attention, which becomes fixed on an indivi- 
dual, whose words and actions, and the effect of 
whose teaching it is their great object to put on 
record. The authors of the Gospels are biographers 
of Christ, not historians of their nation ; they intend 



Lect. VIL] new TESTAMENT BIOGRAPHICAL. 179 

no account of the political condition of Palestine in 
their time, but only a narrative of the chief facts 
concerning our Lord — especially those of his public 
life and ministry (2). Even the Evangelist who in 
a second treatise carries on the narrative from the 
Ascension during the space of some 30 years to the 
first imprisonment of St. Paul at Rome, leaves un- 
touched the national history, and confines himself 
(as the title of his work implies) to the " acts " of 
those who made the doctrine of Christ known to the 
world. Hence the agreement to be traced between 
the sacred narrative and profane history in this part 
of the Biblical records, consists only to a very small ex- 
tent of an accord with respect to the main facts related, 
which it scarcely came within the sphere of the civil 
historian to commemorate ; it is to be found chiefly, if 
not solely, in harmonious representations with respect 
to facts which in the Scriptural narrative are incidental 
and secondary, as the names, offices, and characters 
of the political personages to whom there happens to 
be allusion ; the general condition of the Jews and 
heathen at the time ; the prevalent manners and 
customs ; and the like. The value of such confirma- 
tion is not, however, less, but rather greater than 
that of the more direct confirmation which would 
result from an accordance with respect to main facts 
— in the first place, because it is a task of the 
extremest difficulty for any one but an honest con- 
temporary writer to maintain accuracy in the wide 
field of incidental allusion (3) ; and secondly, because 
exactness in such matters is utterly at variance with 

n 2 



180 REFERENCES TO CIVIL HISTORY. [Lect. VII- 

the mythical spirit, of which, according to the latest 
phase of unbelief, the narrative of the New Testa- 
ment is the product. The detail and appearance 
of exactness, which characterises the Evangelical 
writings, is of itself a strong argument against the 
mythical theory ; if it can be shown that the detail 
is correct and the exactness that of persons inti- 
mately acquainted with the whole history of the time 
and bent on faithfully recording it, that theory may 
be considered as completely subverted and disproved. 
It will be the chief object of the present Lecture to 
make it apparent that this is the case with respect 
to the Evangelical writings — that the incidental 
references to the civil history of the time of which 
they treat, and to the condition of the nations with 
which they deal, are borne out, for the most part, by 
Pagan or Jewish authors, and are either proved thus 
to be correct, or are at any rate such as there is 
no valid reason, on account of any disagreement 
with profane authorities, seriously to question. 

Before entering, however, on this examination of 
the incidental allusions or secondary facts in the 
New Testament narrative, it is important to notice 
two things with regard to the main facts ; in the 
first place, that some of them (as the miracles, the 
resurrection, and the ascension) are of such a nature 
that no testimony to them from profane sources was 
to be expected, since those who believed them natu- 
rally and almost necessarily became Christians ; and 
secondly, that with regard to such as are not of this 
character, there does exist profane testimony of the 



Lect.VIL] HEATHEN ALLUSIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 181 

first order. The existence at this time of one called 
by his followers Christ, the place of his teaching, his 
execution by Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judaea 
under Tiberius, the rapid spread of his doctrine 
through the Roman world, the vast number of con- 
verts made in a short time, the persecutions which 
they underwent, the innocency of their lives, their 
worship of Christ as God — are witnessed to by 
Heathen writers of eminence, and would be certain 
and indisputable facts, had the New Testament 
never been written. Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal, 
Pliny, Trajan, Adrian (4), writing in the century 
immediately following upon the death of Christ, 
declare these things to us, and establish, so firmly 
that no sceptic can even profess to doubt it, the 
historical character of (at least) that primary ground- 
work whereon the Christian story, as related by the 
Evangelists, rests as on an immovable basis. These 
classic notices compel even those who set no value 
on the historical Christ, to admit his existence (5) ; 
they give a definite standing-point to the religion, 
which might otherwise have been declared to have 
no historical foundation at all, but to be purely and 
absolutely mythic ; they furnish, taken by them- 
selves, no unimportant argument for the truth of the 
religion, which they prove to have been propagated 
with such zeal, by persons of pure and holy lives, 
in spite of punishments and persecutions of the most 
fearful kind ; and they form, in combination with 
the argument from the historic accuracy of the inci- 
dental allusions, an evidence in favour of the sub- 



182 RETICENCE OF HEATHEN WRITERS. [Lect. VII 

stantial truth of the New Testament narrative which 
is amply sufficient to satisfy any fair mind. As they 
have been set forth fully and with admirable argu- 
mentative skill by so popular a writer as Paley, I 
am content to make this passing allusion to them, 
and to refer such of my hearers as desire a fuller 
treatment of the point to the excellent chapter on 
the subject in the first part of Paley's ' Evidences ' (6). 
If an objection be raised against the assignment 
of very much weight to these testimonies of adver- 
saries on account of their scant number and brevity ; 
and if it be urged, that supposing the New Testa- 
ment narrative to be true, we should have expected 
far more frequent and fuller notices of the religion 
and its Founder than the remains of antiquity in fact 
furnish, — if it be said (for instance) that Josephus 
ought to have related the miracles of Christ, and 
Seneca, the brother of Gallio, his doctrines ; that the 
observant Pausanias, the voluminous Plutarch, the 
copious Dio, the exact Arrian, should have made 
frequent mention of Christianity in their writings, 
instead of almost wholly ignoring it (7) ; let it be 
considered, in the first place, whether the very 
silence of these writers is not a proof of the impor- 
tance which in their hearts they assigned to Chris- 
tianity, and the difficulty which they felt in dealing 
with it — whether in fact it is not a forced and 
studied reticence — a reticence so far from being indi- 
cative of ignorance that it implies only too much 
knowledge, having its origin in a feeling that it was 
best to ignore what it was unpleasant to confess and 



Lect. VII.] HEATHEN JEALOUSY OF CHRISTIANITY. 183 

impossible to meet satisfactorily. Pausanias must 
certainly have been aware that the shrines of his 
beloved gods were in many places deserted, and 
that their temples were falling into decay owing to 
the conversion of the mass of the people to the new 
religion ; we may be sure he inwardly mourned over 
this sad spirit of disaffection — this madness (as he 
must have thought it) of a degenerate age ; but no 
word is suffered to escape him on the painful sub- 
ject ; he is too jealous of his gods' honour to allow 
that there are any who dare to insult them. Like 
the faithful retainer of a falling house he covers 
up the shame of his masters, and bears his head so 
much the more proudly because of their depressed 
condition. Again, it is impossible that Epictetus 
could have been ignorant of the wonderful patience 
and constancy of the Christian martyrs, of their 
marked contempt of death and general indifference 
to worldly things — he must, one would think, as a 
Stoic, have been moved with a secret admiration of 
those great models of fortitude, and if he had allowed 
himself to speak freely, could not but have made 
frequent reference to them. The one contemptuous 
notice, which is all that Arrian reports (8), suffi- 
ciently indicates his knowledge ; the entire silence, 
except in this passage (9), upon what it so nearly 
concerned a Stoical philosopher to bring forward, 
can only be viewed as the studied avoidance of a 
topic which would have been unpalatable to his 
hearers, and to himself perhaps not wholly agree- 
able. The philosopher who regarded himself as 



184 EETICENCE OF JOSEPHUS, [Lect. VII. 

raised by study and reflection to an exalted height 
above the level of ordinary humanity, would not be 
altogether pleased to find that his elevation was 
attained by hundreds of common men, artisans and 
labourers, through the power of a religion which he 
looked on as mere fanaticism. Thus from different 
motives, — from pride, from policy, from fear of 
offending the Chief of the state, from real attach- 
ment to the old Heathenism and tenderness for it, 
— the heathen writers who witnessed the birth and 
growth of Christianity, united in a reticence, which 
causes their notices of the religion to be a very 
insufficient measure of the place which it really held 
in their thoughts and apprehensions. A large allow- 
ance is to be made for this studied silence in esti- 
mating the value of the actual testimonies to the 
truth of the New Testament narrative adducible 
from heathen writers of the first and second centu- 
turies (10). 

And the silence of Josephus is, more plainly still, 
wilful and affected. It is quite impossible that the 
Jewish historian should have been ignorant of the 
events which had drawn the eyes of so many to 
Judsea but a few years before his own birth, and 
which a large and increasing sect believed to possess 
a supernatural character. Jesus of Nazareth was, 
humanly speaking, at least as considerable a person- 
age as John the Baptist, and the circumstances of his 
life and death must have attracted at least as much 
attention. There was no good reason why Josephus, 
if he had been an honest historian, should have men- 



Lect. VII. J JOSEPHUS' MOTIVES FOR SILENCE. 185 

tioned the latter and omitted the former. He had 
grown to manhood during the time that Christianity 
was being spread over the world (11) ; he had pro- 
bably witnessed the tumults excited against St. Paul 
by his enemies at Jerusalem ; a he knew of the irre- 
gular proceedings against "James the Lord's bro- 
ther" 15 (12); he must have been well acquainted 
with the various persecutions which the Christians 
had undergone at the hands of both Jews and 
heathen (13) ; at any rate he could not fail to be at 
least as well-informed as Tacitus on the subject of 
transactions, of which his own country had been the 
scene, and which had fallen partly within his own 
lifetime. When therefore we find that he is abso- 
lutely silent concerning the Christian religion, and, 
if he mentions Christ at all, mentions him only 
incidentally in a single passage, as " Jesus, who was 
called Christ " (14), without appending further com- 
ment or explanation ; when we find this, we cannot 
but conclude that for some reason or other the Jew- 
ish historian practises an intentional reserve, and 
will not enter upon a subject which excites his fears 
(15), or offends his prejudices. No conclusions 
inimical to the historic accuracy of the New Testa- 
ment can reasonably be drawn from the silence of a 
writer who determinately avoids the subject. 

Further, in estimating the value of that direct 
evidence of adversaries to the main facts of Chris- 
tianity which remains to us, we must not overlook 

a Acts xxi. 27 et seqq. ; xxviii. 22, 23 ; xxiii. 10. 
b Gal. i. 19. 



186 CONTEMPORARY RECORDS LOST. [Lect. VII. 

the probability that much evidence of this kind has 
perished. The books of the early opponents of 
Christianity, which might have been of the greatest 
use to us for the confirmation of the Gospel History 
(16), were with an unwise zeal destroyed by the 
first Christian Emperors (17). Other testimony of 
the greatest importance has perished by the ravages 
of time. It seems certain that Pilate remitted to 
Tiberius an account of the execution of our Lord, 
and the grounds of it ; and that this document, to 
which Justin Martyr more than once alludes (18), 
was deposited in the archives of the Empire. The 
" Acts of Pilate," as they were called, seem to have 
contained an account, not only of the circumstances 
of the crucifixion, and the grounds upon which the 
Roman governor regarded himself as justified in 
passing sentence of death upon the accused, but also 
of the Miracles of Christ — his cures performed upon 
the lame, the dumb, and the blind, his cleansing of 
lepers, and his raising of the dead (19). If this 
valuable direct testimony had been preserved to us, 
it would scarcely have been necessary to enter on 
the consideration of those indirect proofs of the his- 
torical truth of the New Testament narrative arising 
from the incidental allusions to the civil history of 
the times which must now occupy our attention. 

The incidental allusions to the civil history of the 
times which the writings of the Evangelists furnish, 
will, I think, be most conveniently reviewed by 
being grouped under three heads. I shall consider, 
first of all, such as bear upon the general condition 



Lect. VII.] SCOPE OF THE PEESENT INQUIRY. 187 

of the countries which were the scene of the history ; 
secondly, such as have reference to the civil rulers 
and administrators who are represented as exercising 
authority in the countries at the time of the narra- 
tive ; and, thirdly, such as touch on separate and 
isolated facts which might be expected to obtain 
mention in profane writers. These three heads will 
embrace all the most important of the allusions in 
question, and the arrangement of the scattered no- 
tices under them will, I hope, prove conducive to 
perspicuity. 

I. The political condition of Palestine at the time 
to which the New Testament narrative properly 
belongs, was one curiously complicated and anomal- 
ous ; it underwent frequent changes, but retained 
through all of them certain peculiarities, which made 
the position of the country unique among the depen- 
dencies of Rome. Not having been conquered in 
the ordinary way, but having passed under the 
Roman dominion with the consent and by the assis- 
tance of a large party among the inhabitants, it was 
allowed to maintain for a while a species of semi- 
independence, not unlike that of various native 
states in India which are really British dependencies. 
A mixture, and to some extent an alternation, of 
Roman with native power resulted from this arrange- 
ment, and a consequent complication in the political 
status, which must have made it very difficult to be 
thoroughly understood by any one who was not a 
native and a contemporary. The chief representa- 
tive of the Roman power in the East — the President 



188 POLITICAL CONDITION OF PALESTINE. [Lect. VII. 

of Syria, the local governor, whether a Herod or a 
Roman Procurator, and the High Priest, had each 
and all certain rights and a certain authority in the 
country. A double system of taxation, a double ad- 
ministration of justice, and even in some degree a 
double military command, were the natural conse- 
quence ; while Jewish and Roman customs, Jewish 
and Roman words, were simultaneously in use, and 
a condition of things existed full of harsh contrasts, 
strange mixtures, and abrupt transitions. Within 
the space of 50 years, Palestine was a single united 
kingdom under a native ruler, a set of principalities 
under native ethnarchs and tetrarchs, a country in 
part containing such principalities, in part reduced 
to the condition of a Roman province, a kingdom 
reunited once more under a native sovereign, and 
a country reduced wholly under Rome and governed 
by procurators dependent on the president of Syria, 
but still subject in certain respects to the Jewish 
monarch of a neighbouring territory. These facts 
we know from Josephus (20) and other writers, 
who, though less accurate, on the whole confirm his 
statements (21) ; they render the civil history of 
Judasa during the period one very difficult to master 
and remember ; the frequent changes, supervening 
upon the original complication, are a fertile source of 
confusion, and seem to have bewildered even the 
sagacious and painstaking Tacitus (22). The New 
Testament narrative, however, falls into no error in 
treating of the period ; it marks, incidentally and 
without effort or pretension, the various changes in 



Lisot. VII.] COMPLICATIONS AND ANOMALIES. 



189 



the civil government — the sole kingdom of Herod 
the Great, — the partition of his dominions among 
his sons, d — the reduction of Judsea to the condition of 
a Eoman province, while Galilee, Xturaea, and Tra- 
chonitis continued under native princes, 6 — the resto- 
ration of the old kingdom of Palestine in the person 
of Agrippa the First/ and the final reduction of the 
whole under Roman rule, and re-estahlishment of 
Procurators g as the civil heads, while a species of 
ecclesiastical superintendence was exercised by 
Agrippa the Second h (23). Again, the New Testa- 
ment narrative exhibits in the most remarkable way 
the mixture in the government — the occasional 
power of the president of Syria, as shown in Cyre- 
nius's " taxing ;" * the ordinary division o£ authority 
between the High Priest and the Procurator ; j 
the existence of two separate taxations — the civil 
and the ecclesiastical, the " census " k and the " di- 
drachm ; " l of two tribunals, 111 two modes of capital 
punishment (24), two military forces, 11 two methods 
of marking time ; ° at every turn it shows, even in 
such little matters as verbal expressions, the co-exis- 
tence of Jewish with Roman ideas and practices in 
the country — a co-existence, which (it must be re- 



c Matt. ii. 1 ; Luke i. 5. 
d Matt. ii. 22 and xiv. 1 ; Luke 
iii. 1. 

e Luke iii. 1, and passim. 

f Acts xii. 1 et seqq. 

g Ibid, xxiii. 24; xxiv. 27, &o. 

h Ibid. xxv. 14 et seqq. 

s Luke ii. 2. Compare Acts 



v. 37. 

j Matt, xxvii. 1,2; Acts xxii. 
30; xxiii. 1-10. 

k Matt. xxii. 17. 

1 Ibid. xvii. 24. 

ra John xviii. 28, 32, &c. 

n Matt, xxvii. 64, 65. 

° Luke iii. 1. 



190 TONE AND TEMPER OF THE JEWS. [Lect. VII. 

membered) came to an end within forty years of our 
Lord's crucifixion. The conjunction in the same 

Writings of such Latinisms as Kevrvplcov, Xeyecov, irpai- 

TOOpLOV, KOVCTTOoSia, fCrjV(TO$, KoSpaVT*]?, St]vdpLOV, CKTodplOV, 

G7reKov\drcop, (ppayeXXcocra^ and the like (25), with such 
Hebraisms as icopfidv, pafifiovvii Svo Svo, irpaaiai Trpaaiai, 
to fiSekuyfia rrjg tpijjuwaecog (26), was only natural in 
Palestine during the period between Herod the 
Great and the destruction of Jerusalem, and marks 
the writers for Jews of that time and country. The 
memory of my hearers will add a multitude of 
instances from the Gospels and the Acts similar in 
their general character to those which have been 
here adduced — indicative, that is, of the semi-Jewish, 
semi-Roman condition of the Holy Land at the 
period of the New Testament narrative. 

The general tone and temper of the Jews at the 
time, their feelings towards the Romans, and towards 
their neighbours, their internal divisions and sects, 
their confident expectation of a deliverer, are repre- 
sented by Josephus and other writers in a manner 
which very strikingly accords with the account inci- 
dentally given by the Evangelists. The extreme 
corruption and wickedness, not only of the mass of 
the people, but even of the rulers and chief men, is 
asserted by Josephus in the strongest terms (27) ; 
while at the same time he testifies to the existence 
among them of a species of zeal for religion — a rea- 
diness to attend the feasts (28), a regularity in the 
offering of sacrifice (29), an almost superstitious 
regard for the temple (30), and a fanatic abhorrence 



Lect. VII.] MENTION OF PARALLEL INCIDENTS. 191 

of all who sought to " change the customs which 
Moses had delivered." 1 ? The conspiracy against He- 
rod the Great, when ten men bound themselves by an 
oath to kill him, and having armed themselves with 
short daggers, which they hid under their clothes, 
entered into the theatre where they expected Herod 
to arrive, intending if he came to fall upon him and 
dispatch him with their weapons (31), breathes the 
identical spirit of that against St. Paul, which the 
promptness of the chief captain Lysias alone frus- 
trated.* 1 Many such close resemblances have been 
pointed out (32). We find from Josephus that there 
was a warm controversy among the Jews themselves 
as to the lawfulness of " giving tribute to Csesar " r 
(33) ; that the Samaritans were so hostile to such of 
the Galileans as had their " faces set to go to Jerusa- 
lem," s that, on one occasion at least, they fell upon 
those who were journeying through their land to 
attend a feast, and murdered a large number (34) ; 
that the Pharisees and Sadducees were noted sects, 
distinguished by the tenets which in Scripture are 
assigned to them (35) ; that the Pharisees were the 
more popular, and persuaded the common people as 
they pleased, while the Sadducees were important 
chiefly as men of high rank and station (36); and 
that a general expectation, founded upon the prophe- 
cies of the Old Testament, existed among the Jews 
during the Roman war, that a great king was about 
to rise up in the East, of their own race and country 

p Acts vi. 14. fl Ibid, xxiii. 12-31. r Matt. xxii. 17. 
8 Luke ix. 51. 



192 ABUNDANCE OF JEWISH CONFIRMATIONS. [Lect. VII. 

(37). This last fact is confirmed by both Suetonius 
(38) and Tacitus (39), and is one which even 
Strauss does not venture to dispute (40). Important 
in many ways, it adds a final touch to that truthful 
portraiture of the Jewish people at this period of 
their history, which the Gospels and the Acts fur- 
nish — a portraiture alike free from flattery and un- 
fairness, less harsh on the whole than that of Jose- 
phus, if less favourable than that of Philo (41). 

It would be easy to point out a further agreement 
between the Evangelical historians and profane 
writers with respect to the manners and customs 
of the Jews at this period. There is scarcely a 
matter of this kind noted in the New Testament 
which may not be confirmed from Jewish sources, 
such as Josephus, Philo, and the Mishna. The field, 
however, is too extensive for our present considera- 
tion. To labour in it is the province rather of the 
Commentator than of the Lecturer, who cannot effec- 
tively exhibit arguments which depend for their 
force upon the accumulation of minute details. 

The points of agreement hitherto adduced have 
had reference to the Holy Land and its inhabitants. 
It is not, however, in this connexion only that the 
accuracy of the Evangelical writers in their accounts 
of the general condition of those countries which are 
the scene of their history, is observable. Their de- 
scriptions of the Greek and Roman world, so far as it 
comes under their cognizance, are most accurate. 
Nowhere have the character of the Athenians and 
the general appearance of Athens been more truth- 



Lect. VII. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ATHENIANS. 193 

fully and skilfully portrayed than in the few verses 
of the Acts which contain the account of St. Paul's 
visit. 1 The city "full of idols" (/care/^Xo? u )— in 
"gold, and silver, and* marble, graven by art and 
man's device " v recalls the ir6\i9 o\n ftco/mos, o\*i Ou/ua 
Oeoig kou avdOrjima of Xenophon (42), the "Athense si- 
mulachra deorum hominumque habentes, omni genere 
et materise et artium insignia" of Livy (43). The 
people — " Athenians and . strangers, spending their 
time in nothing else but hearing or telling of some new 
thing " w — philosophising and disputing on Mars' Hill 
and in the market-place,* glad to discuss though dis- 
inclined to believe, 7 and yet religious withal, standing 
in honourable contrast with the other Greeks in re- 
spect of their reverence for things divine, 55 are put 
before us with all the vividness of life, just as they 
present themselves to our view in the pages of their 
own historians and orators (44). Again, how strik- 
ing and how thoroughly classical is the account of 
the tumult at Ephesus/ where almost every word 
receives illustration from ancient coins and inscrip- 
tions (45), as has been excellently shewn in a recent 
work of great merit on the Life of St. Paul ! Or if 
we turn to Eome and the Eoman system, how truly 
do we find depicted the great and terrible Emperor 
whom all feared to provoke (46) — the provincial ad- 
ministration by proconsuls and others chiefly anxious 



1 Acts xvii. 15 et seqq. 
u Ibid, verse 16. 
v Ibid, verse 29. 
" Ibid, verse 21 . 



x Ibid, verse 17. 

y Ibid, verses 32, 33. 

z Ibid, verse 22. 

a Ibid. xix. 23 et seqq. 

O 



194 GREEK AND ROMAN CUSTOMS. [Lect. VII 

that tumults should be prevented (47) — the contemp- 
tuous religious tolerance (48) — the noble principles of 
Roman law, professed, if not always acted on, where- 
by accusers and accused were brought " face to face/' 
and the latter had free " license to answer for them- 
selves concerning the crimes laid against them" b (49) 
— the privileges of Roman citizenship, sometimes 
acquired by birth, sometimes by purchase (50) — the 
right of appeal possessed and exercised by the pro- 
vincials (51) — the treatment of prisoners (52) — the 
peculiar manner of chaining them (53) — the employ- 
ment of soldiers as their guards (54) — the examina- 
tion by torture (55) — the punishment of condemned 
persons, not being Roman citizens, by scourging and 
crucifixion (56) — the manner of this punishment (57) 
— the practice of bearing the cross (58), of affixing a 
title or superscription (59), of placing soldiers under 
a centurion to watch the carrying into effect of the 
sentence (60), of giving the garments of the sufferer 
to these persons (61), of allowing the bodies after 
death to be buried by the friends (62) — and the like ! 
The sacred historians are as familiar, not only with 
the general character, but even with some of the ob- 
scurer customs of Greece and Rome, as with those of 
their own country. Fairly observant, and always 
faithful in their accounts, they continually bring 
before us little points which accord minutely with 
notices in profane writers nearly contemporary with 
them, while occasionally they increase our knowledge 
of classic antiquity by touches harmonious with its 

b Acts xxv. 16. 



Lect. VII.] WIDE DISPERSION OF THE JEWS. 195 

spirit, but additional to the information which we 
derive from the native authorities (63). 

Again, it has been with reason remarked (64), that 
the condition of the Jews beyond the limits of Pales- 
tine is represented by the Evangelical writers very 
agreeably to what may be gathered of it from Jewish 
and Heathen sources. The wide dispersion of the 
chosen race is one of the facts most evident upon the 
surface of the New Testament history. " Parthians, 
and Medes, and Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopo- 
tamia and Judsea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 
Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of 
Libya about Cyrene, strangers of Rome, Cretes, and 
Arabians," are said to have been witnesses at Jeru- 
salem of the first outpouring of the Holy Ghost. In 
the travels of St. Paul through Asia Minor and 
Greece there is scarcely a city to which he comes but 
has a large body of Jewish residents (65). Compare 
with these representations the statements of Agrippa 
the First in his letter to Caligula, as reported by the 
Jewish writer, Philo. " The holy city, the place of 
my nativity," he says, "is the metropolis, not of 
Judasa only, but of most other countries, by means 
of the colonies which have been sent out of it from 
time to time — some to the neighbouring countries 
of Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, and Coelesyria — some to 
more distant regions, as Pamphylia, Cilicia, Asia as 
far as Bithynia and the recesses of Pontus ; and in 
Europe, Thessaly, Boeotia, Macedonia, iEtolia, Attica, 
Argos, Corinth, together with the most famous of the 

• c Acts ii. 9-11. 

o 2 



/ 



196 CONDITION OF THE FOREIGN JEWS. [Lect. VII. 

islands, Euboea, Cyprus, and Crete ; to say nothing 
of those who dwell beyond the Euphrates. For, ex- 
cepting a small part of the Babylonian and other 
satrapies, all the countries which have a fertile 
territory possess Jewish inhabitants ; so that if thou 
shalt shew this kindness to my native place, thou 
wilt benefit not one city only, but thousands in every 
region of the world, in Europe, in Asia, in Africa — 
on the continents, and in the islands — on the shores 
of the sea, and in the interior" (6$). In a similar 
strain Philo himself boasts, that " one region does 
not contain the Jewish people, since it is exceedingly 
numerous; but there are of them in almost al] the 
flourishing countries of Europe and Asia, both conti- 
nental and insular" (67). And the customs of these 
dispersed Jews are accurately represented in the New 
Testament. That they consisted in part of native Jews, 
in part of converts or proselytes, is evident from Jose- 
phus (68) ; that they had places of worship, called syna- 
gogues or oratories, in the towns where they lived, 
appears from Philo ; that these were commonly by 
the sea-side, or by a river side, as represented in the 
Acts/ is plain from many authors (69) ; that they 
had also — at least sometimes — a synagogue belonging 
to them at Jerusalem, whither they resorted at the 
time of the feasts, is certain from the Talmudical 
writers (70) ; that at Rome they consisted in great 
part of freedmen or " Libertines" — whence " the syna- 
gogue of the Libertines " c — may be gathered from 
Philo (71) and Tacitus (72). Their feelings towards 

d Aots xvi. 13. e Ibid. vi. 9. 



Lect. VII.] ALLUSIONS TO CIVIL GOVERNORS. 197 

the apostolic preachers are such as we should expect 
from persons whose close contact with those of a 
different religion made them all the more zealous for 
their own ; and their tumultuous proceedings are in 
accordance with all that we learn from profane 
authors of the tone and temper of the Jews generally 
at this period (73). 

II. I proceed now to consider the second of the 
three heads under which I proposed to collect the 
chief incidental allusions to the civil history of the 
times contained in the New Testament. 

The civil governors and administrators distinctly 
mentioned by the New Testament historians are the 
following — the Roman Emperors, Augustus, Tiberius, 
and Claudius — the Jewish kings and princes, Herod 
the Great, Archelaus, Herod the tetrarch, (or, as he 
is commonly called, Herod Antipas,) Philip the te- 
trarch, Herod Agrippa the first, and Herod Agrippa 
the second — the Roman governors, Cyrenius (or Qui- 
rinus), Pontius Pilate, Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Festus, 
and Felix — and the Greek tetrarch, Lysanias. It 
may be shewn from profane sources, in almost every 
case, that these persons existed — that they lived at 
the time and bore the office assigned to them — that 
they were related to each other, where any relation- 
ship is stated, as Scripture declares — and that the 
actions ascribed to them are either actually such as 
they performed, or at least in perfect harmony with 
what profane history tells us of their characters. 

With regard to the Roman Emperors, it is enough 
to remark, that Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius 



198 JEWISH NATIVE PRINCES. [Lect, VII. 

occur in their right order, that St. Luke in placing 
the commencement of our Lord's ministry in the- 
1 5th year of Tiberius f and assigning to its duration 
a short term — probably three years — is in accord 
with Tacitus, who makes Christ suffer under Tiberius 
(74) — and that the birth of our Lord under Augus- 
tus, 8 and the accession before the second journey of 
St. Paul of Claudius, 11 are in harmony with the date 
obtainable from St. Luke for the crucifixion, and 
sufficiently suit the general scheme of profane chro- 
nology, which places the accession of Augustus 44 
years before that of Tiberius, and makes Claudius 
reign from a.d. 41 to a.d. 54. No very close 
agreement can be here exhibited on account of the 
deficiency of an exact chronology, which the Gospels 
share with many of the most important historical 
writings ; but at any rate the notices are accordant 
with one another, and present, when compared with 
the dates furnished by profane writers, no difficulty 
of any real importance (75). 

The Jewish kings and princes whose names occur 
in the New Testament narrative, occupy a far more 
prominent place in it than the Eoman Emperors. 
The Gospel narrative opens " in the days of Herod 
the king/' * who, as the father of Archelaus, j may be 
identified with the first monarch of the name, the son 
of Antipater, the Idumsean (76). This monarch is 
known to have reigned in Palestine contemporane- 
ously with Augustus, who confirmed him in his 

f Luke iii. 1. B Ibid. ii. 1-7. h Acts xviii. 2. 

j Matt, ii. 1 ; Luke i. 5. j Matt. ii. 22. 



Lect. VII.] CHARACTER OF HEROD THE GREAT. 199 

kingdom (77), and of whom he held the sovereignty 
till his decease (78). Cunning, suspicion, and cruelty, 
are the chief traits of his character as depicted in 
Scripture, and these are among his most marked 
characteristics in Josephus (79). It has been ob- 
jected to the Scriptural narrative, that Herod would 
not have been likely to enquire of the Magi at what 
time they first saw the star, since he expected them 
to return and give him a full description of the child 
(80) ; but this keen and suspicious foresight, where 
his own interests were (as he thought) concerned, is 
quite in keeping with the representations of Josephus, 
who makes him continually distrust those with whom 
he has any dealings. The consistency of the mas- 
sacre at Bethlehem with his temper and disposition 
is now acknowledged (81) ; scepticism has nothing to 
urge against it except the silence of the Jewish 
writers, which is a weak argument, and one out- 
weighed, in my judgment, by the testimony, albeit 
somewhat late and perhaps inaccurate, of Macrobius 
(82). 

At the death of Herod the Great, his kingdom 
(according to Josephus) was divided, with the con- 
sent of Augustus, among three of his sons. Arche- 
laus received Judea, Samaria, and Idumsea, with the 
title of ethnarch ; Philip and Antipas were made 
tetrarchs, and received, the latter Galilee and Peraea, 
the former Trachonitis and the adjoining regions (83). 
The notices of the Evangelists are confessedly in 
complete accordance with these statements (84). St. 
Matthew mentions the succession of Archelaus in 



200 SONS OF HEROD THE GREAT. [Lect. VII. 

Judaea, and implies that he did not reign in Galilee ; k 
St. Luke records Philip's tetrarchy; 1 while the te- 
trarchy of Antipas, who is designated by his family 
name of Herod, is distinctly asserted by both Evan- 
gelists.™ Moreover, St. Matthew implies that Arche- 
laus bore a bad character at the time of his accession 
or soon afterwards, which is consistent with the 
account of Josephus, who tells us that he was hated 
by the other members of his family (85), and that 
shortly after his father's death he slew 3000 Jews on 
occasion of a tumult at Jerusalem (86). The first 
three Evangelists agree as to the character of Herod 
Antipas, which is weak rather than cruel or blood- 
thirsty ; and their portraiture is granted to be " not 
inconsistent with his character, as gathered from 
other sources" (87). The facts of his adultery with 
Herodias, the wife of one of his brothers (88), and of 
his execution of John the Baptist for no crime that 
could be alleged against him (89), are recorded by 
Josephus ; and though in the latter case there is some 
apparent diversity in the details, yet it is allowed 
that the different accounts may be reconciled (90). 

The continuance of the tetrarchy of Philip be- 
yond the fifteenth, and that of Antipas beyond the 
eighteenth of Tiberius, is confirmed by Josephus 
(91), who also shows that the ethnarchy of Archelaus 
came speedily to an end, and that Judaea was then 
reduced to the condition of a Roman province, and 
governed for a considerable space by Procurators 
(92). However, after a while, the various domi- 

k Matt. ii. 22. ' Luke iii. 1. m Ibid. ; Matt. xiv. 1. 



Lect. VII.] DEATH OF HEROD AGRIPPA. 201 

nions of Herod the Great were reunited in the person 
of his grandson, Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus and 
brother of Herodias ; who was allowed the title of 
king, and was in favour with both Caligula and 
Claudius (93). It cannot be doubted that this person 
is the " Herod the king " of the Acts, n whose perse- 
cution of the Church, whose impious pride, and 
whose miserable death are related at length by the 
sacred historian. My hearers are probably familiar 
with that remarkable passage of Josephus in which 
he records with less accuracy of detail than St. Luke 
the striking circumstances of this monarch's decease 
— the " set day" — the public assemblage — the " royal 
dress" — the impious flattery — its complacent recep- 
tion — the sudden judgment — the excruciating disease 
—the speedy death (94). Nowhere does profane his- 
tory furnish a more striking testimony to the sub- 
stantial truth of the sacred narrative — nowhere is the 
superior exactness of the latter over the former more 
conspicuous. 

On the death of Herod Agrippa, Judaea (as Jose- 
phus informs us) became once more a Roman pro- 
vince under Procurators (95) ; but the small kingdom 
of Chalcis was, a few years later, conferred by Clau- 
dius on this Herod's son, Agrippa the Second, who 
afterwards received other territories (96). This prince 
is evidently the " king Agrippa" before whom St. 
Paul pleaded his cause. The Bernice who is men- 
tioned as accompanying him on his visit to Festus, p 
was his sister, who lived with him and commonly 

" Acts. xii. 1. ° Ibid. xxv. 13, ct seqq. p Ibid. 



202 CHARACTER OF THE ROMAN PROCURATORS. [Lect. VII. 

accompanied him upon his journeys (97). Besides 
his separate sovereignty, he had received from the 
Emperor a species of ecclesiastical supremacy in 
Judaea, where he had the superintendence of the 
temple, the direction of the sacred treasury, and the 
right of nominating the High Priest (98). These 
circumstances account sufficiently for his visit to 
Judasa, and explain the anxiety of Festus that he 
should hear St. Paul, and St. Paul's willingness to 
plead before him. , 

The Eoman Procurators, Pontius Pilate, Felix, 
and Festus, are prominent personages in the history 
of Josephus, where they occur in the proper chrono- 
logical position (99), and bear characters very agree- 
able to those which are assigned them by the sacred 
writers. The vacillation of Pilate, his timidity, and 
at the same time his occasional violence (100), the 
cruelty, injustice, and rapacity of Felix (101), and the 
comparatively equitable and mild character of Festus 
(102), are apparent in the Jewish historian ; and 
have some sanction from other writers (103). The 
character of Gallio, proconsul of Achaia (104) and 
brother of the philosopher Seneca, is also in close 
accordance with that which may be gathered from 
the expressions of Seneca and Statius, who speak of 
him as "delightful" or "charming" (105). Of Qui- 
rinus (or Cyrenius) it is enough to say that he was 
President of Syria shortly after the deposition of 
Archelaus, and that he was certainly sent to effect a 
" taxing" or enrolment of all persons within his pro- 
vince, Palestine included (10G). Scrgius Paulus is 



Lect. VII.] LYSANIAS THE GREEK TETRARCH. 203 

unknown to us except from St. Luke's account of 
him ; q but his name is one which was certainly 
borne by Eomans of this period (107), and his office 
is designated correctly (108). 

The Greek tetrarch, Lysanias, is the only civil 
governor mentioned in the New Testament about 
whom there is any real difficulty. A Lysanias held 
certainly a government in these parts in the time of 
Antony (109) ; but this person was put to death 
more than 30 years before the birth of Christ (110), 
and therefore cannot be the prince mentioned as 
ruling over Abilene 30 years after Christ's birth. 
It is argued that St. Luke " erred," being misled by 
the circumstance that the region continued to be 
known as " the Abilene of Lysanias " down to the 
time of the second Agrippa (111). But, on the 
other hand, it is allowed that a second Lysanias 
might have existed without obtaining mention from 
profane writers (112) ; and the facts, that Abilene 
was in Agrippa's time connected with the name 
Lysanias, and that there is no reason to believe that 
it formed any part of the dominions of the first 
Lysanias, favour the view, that a second Lysanias, 
a descendant of the first, obtained from Augustus or 
Tiberius an investiture of the tract in question (113). 

III. It now only remains to touch briefly on a few 
of the remarkable facts in the New Testament narra- 
tive which might have been expected to attract the 
attention of profane historians, and of which we 
should naturally look to have some record. Such 

q Acts xiii. 7-12. 



204 HISTORICAL FACTS SAID TO BE DOUBTFUL. [Lect. VII. 

facts are the " decree from Caesar Augustus that all 
the world should be taxed " r — the " taxing " of Cyre- 
nius 8 — the preaching and death of John the Baptist 
— our Lord's execution as a criminal — the adultery 
of Herod Antipas — the disturbances created by the 
impostors Theudas and Judas of Galilee * — the death 
of Herod Agrippa — the famine in the days of Clau- 
dius 11 — and the " uproar " of the Egyptian who " led 
out into the wilderness 4000 men that were mur- 
derers." v Of these events almost one-half have 
been already shown to have been recorded by pro- 
fane writers whose works are still extant (114). The 
remainder will now be considered with the brevity 
which my limits necessitate. 

It has been asserted that no " taxing of all the 
world " — that is, of the whole Roman Empire — took 
place in the time of Augustus (115) ; but as the 
opposite view is maintained by Savigny (116) — the 
best modern authority upon Roman law — this asser- 
tion cannot be considered to need examination here. 
A far more important objection to St. Luke's state- 
ment is derived from the time at which this " tax- 
ing" is placed by him. Josephus mentions the 
extension of the Roman census to Judaea under 
Cyrenius, at least ten years later — after the removal 
of Archelaus (117), and seems to speak of this as the 
first occasion on which his countrymen were com- 
pelled to submit to this badge of subjection. It is 
argued that this must have been the first occasion ; 

r Luke ii. 1. s Ibid, verse 2. » Acts v. 36, 37. 

u Acts xi. 28. v Ibid. xxi. 38. 



Lect. VII.] "TAXING" OF CYRENIUS. 205 

and the words of St. Luke (it is said) — "this taxing 
was first made when Cyrenius was governor of 
Syria" — show that he intended the taxing men- 
tioned by Josephus, which he consequently mis« 
dated by a decade of years (118). But the meaning 
of the passage in St. Luke is doubtful in the ex- 
treme ; and it admits of several explanations which 
reconcile it with all that Josephus says (119). Per- 
haps the best explanation is that of Whiston (120) 
and Prideaux (121) — that the design of Augustus 
was first fully executed (eyevero) when Cyrenius was 
governor, though the decree went forth and the 
enrolment commenced ten years earlier. 

The taxing of Cyrenius of which St. Luke speaks 
in this passage, and to which he also alludes in the 
Acts, w is (as we have seen) very fully narrated by 
Josephus. It caused the rebellion mentioned in 
Gamaliel's speech, which was headed by Judas of 
Galilee, who " drew away much people after him," 
but " perished," — all, as many as obeyed him, being 
" dispersed'' x This account harmonises well with 
that of Josephus, who regards the followers of Judas 
as numerous enough to constitute a sect (122), and 
notes their reappearance in the course of the last 
war with Rome, by which it is shown that though 
scattered they had not ceased to exist (123). 

The disturbance created by a certain Theudas, 

some time before the rebellion of Judas of Galilee, 

seems not to be mentioned by any ancient author. 

The identity of names is a very insufficient ground 

w Acts v. 37. x Ibid, verse 3G. 



206 DISTURBANCES IN PALESTINE. [Lect. VII. 

for assuming this impostor to be the same as the 
Theudas of Josephus (124), who raised troubles in 
the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus, about ten years 
after Gamaliel made his speech. There were, as 
Josephus says (125), "innumerable disturbances" in 
Judsea about this time ; and it is not at all impro- 
bable that within the space of forty years, during 
which a number of impostors gathered followers and 
led them to destruction, two should have borne the 
same name. Nor can it be considered surprising 
that Josephus has passed over the earlier Theudas, 
since his followers were only 400, and since the 
historian evidently omits all but the most important 
of the troubles which had afflicted his country. 

The " uproar " of the Egyptian who " led out 
into the wilderness 4000 men that were murderers," y 
is described at length by the Jewish writer (126), 
the only noticeable difference between his account 
and that of St. Luke being that Josephus in his pre- 
sent text calls the number of this impostor's followers 
30,000. From internal evidence there is reason to 
think that rpio-jULvpioi is a corrupt reading (127) ; but 
even as the text stands, it does not contradict St. 
Luke ; for the 4000 of St. Luke are the number 
whom the impostor " led out into the wilderness," 
while the 30,000 of Josephus are the number whom 
he " brought from the wilderness " to attack Jeru- 
salem. 

The " famine in the days of Claudius " z is men- 
tioned by several writers. Josephus tells us that it 
y Acts xxi. 38. z Acts xi. 28. 



Lect. VII.] FAMINE IN THE DAYS OF CLAUDIUS. 207 

was severe in Palestine in the fourth year of this 
emperor ; Dio, Tacitus, and Suetonius, speak of it 
as raging somewhat later in Eome itself (128). 
Helena, queen of Adiabene — the richest portion of 
the ancient Assyria — brought relief to the Jews on 
the occasion, as St. Barnabas and St. Paul did to the 
Christians.* The agreement is here complete, even 
if the words of Agabus's prophecy are pressed — for 
the scarcity seems to have been general throughout 
the Empire. 

This review — imperfect as it necessarily is — will 
probably be felt to suffice for our present purpose. 
We have found that the New Testament, while in 
its main narrative it treats of events with which 
heathen writers were not likely to concern them- 
selves, and which they could not represent truly, 
contains — inextricably interwoven with that main 
narrative — a vast body of incidental allusions to the 
civil history of the times, capable of being tested by 
comparison with the works of profane historians. 
We have submitted the greater part — or at any rate 
a great part — of these incidental allusions to the test 
of such comparison ; and we have found, in all but 
some three or four cases, an entire and striking 
harmony. In no case have we met with clear and 
certain disagreement ; sometimes, but very rarely, 
the accounts are difficult to reconcile, and we may 
suspect them of real disagreement — a result which 
ought not to cause us any astonishment. Profane 
writers are not infallible ; and Josephus, our chief 

a Acts xi. 29, 30. 



208 SUMMARY. •■ [Lect. VII. 

profane authority for the time, has been shown, in 
matters where he does not come into any collision 
with the Christian Scriptures, to " teem with inac- 
curacies" (129). If in any case it should be thought 
that we must choose between Josephus and an Evan- 
gelist, sound criticism requires that we should prefer 
the latter to the former. Josephus is not entirely 
honest : he has his Eoman masters to please, and he 
is prejudiced in favour of his own sect, the Pharisees. 
He has also been convicted of error (130), which is 
not the case with any Evangelist. His authority 
therefore is, in the eyes of an historical critic, infe- 
rior to that of the Gospel writers, and in any 
instance of contradiction, it would be necessary to 
disregard it. In fact, however, we are not reduced 
to this necessity. The Jewish writer nowhere actu- 
ally contradicts our Scriptures, and in hundreds of 
instances he confirms them. It is evident that the 
entire historical framework, in which the Gospel 
picture is set, is real ; that the facts of the civil 
history, small and great, are true, and the person- 
ages correctly depicted, To suppose that there is 
this minute historical accuracy in all the accessories 
of the story, and that the story itself is mythic, is 
absurd ; unless we will declare the Apostles and 
their companions to have sought to palm upon man- 
kind a tale which they knew to be false, and to 
have aimed at obtaining credit for their fiction by 
elaborate attention to these minutiae. From such an 
awowal even Rationalism itself would shrink ; but 
the only alternative is to accept the entire history 



Lect. VII.] CONCLUSION. 209 

as authentic — as, what the Church has always be- 
lieved it to be the Truth. " Veritas omnis in 
Evangelio continetur " (131). " Ab hoc, qui Evan- 
gelista esse meruit, vel negligentise vel mendacii 
suspicionem sequum est propulsari " (132). " Evan- 
gelists habuerunt perfectam agnitionem . . . quibus 
si quis non assentit, spernit quidem participes Do- 
mini, spernit et ipsum Christum, spernit et Patrem " 
(133). Such has been the uniform teaching of the 
Church of Christ from the first — and modern Ra- 
tionalism has failed to show any reason why we 
should reject it. 



210 [Lect. VIII. 



LECTURE VIII. 



John VIII. 13, 14. 

The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of 
thyself ; thy record is not true. Jesus answered and said 
unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record 
is true. 

If the evidence from profane sources to the primary 
facts of the New Testament narrative be, as was 
admitted in the last Lecture, disappointingly scanty, 
the defect is more than made up to us by the copious 
abundance of those notices which early Christian 
writers have left us of the whole series of occurrences 
forming the basis of our Religion. It has been 
customary with Christian apologists to dwell more 
especially on the profane testimony, despite its 
scantiness — doubtless because it has been felt that a 
certain amount of suspicion is regarded as attaching 
to those who " bear record of themselves," and that 
the evidence of Christian witnesses to the truth of 
Christianity is in some degree a record of this nature. 
But our Lord's words teach us that self-witness, 
however unconvincing to the adversary, may be valid 
and true ; and certainly it is difficult to conceive how 
the full acceptance of the Christian facts, and con- 
formity of the profession and life thereto, renders a 
witness unworthy of belief, whose testimony would 
have been regarded as of the highest value if he had 



Lect. VIII.] EVIDENCE OF EARLY CONVERTS. 211 

stopped short of such acceptance, and while admitting 
the facts to a certain extent had remained a Heathen 
or a Jew. Had Justin Martyr, for instance, when 
he enquired into Christianity, found the evidence for 
it such as he could resist, and lived and died a 
Platonic philosopher, instead of renouncing all for 
Christ and finally sealing his testimony with his 
blood, what a value would have been set upon any 
recognition in his writings of the life and miracles of 
Christ or the sufferings of the early Christians ! It is 
difficult to see why he deserves less credit, because 
he found the evidences for the Christian doctrine so 
strong that he felt compelled to become a believer 
(1). At any rate, if for controversial purposes the 
argument derivable from the testimony of Christians 
be viewed as weak, it must possess a weight for those 
who believe far exceeding that of the witness of Jews 
and Heathens, and must therefore deserve a place in 
any summary that is made of the Historical Evi- 
dences to the truth of the Christian Eeligion. 

It has been sometimes urged that the early Chris- 
tians were persons of such low rank and station, so 
wanting in refinement, education, and that critical 
discernment which is requisite to enable men fairly 
to judge of the claims of a new religion, that their 
decision in favour of Christianity is entitled to little 
respect — since they must have been quite unable to 
appreciate the true value of its evidences (2). This 
objection claims to base itself on certain admissions 
of the earliest Christian preachers themselves, who 
remark that " not many wise men after the flesh 

p 2 



212 WITNESS OF EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS. [Lect. VIII. 

not many mighty, not many noble, were called ," a 
But such expressions are not to be pressed too far. 
In their very letter they do but declare the general 
condition of the converts ; while they imply that 
there were, even in the first times, some exceptions — 
persons to whom the terms, " wise men after the 
flesh, mighty, and noble," might have been properly 
applied ; and the examples of St. Paul himself, of 
Dionysius the Areopagite, of the Ethiopian eunuch, 
of " Erastus the chamberlain of the city," b and of the 
converts from " Csesar's household," are sufficient to 
show that the Gospel found its own in every rank 
and grade of society, and if it was embraced most 
readily by the poor and despised, still gathered to it 
u chosen vessels " d from among the educated, and 
occasionally from among the rich and great. The 
early Christians furnished, for their number, a con- 
siderable body of writers ; and these writers will bear 
comparison in respect of every intellectual qualifica- 
tion with the best Heathen authors of the period. 
Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, 
Clement, would have been reckoned authors of emi- 
nence, had they not been "Fathers," and are at 
least as good evidence for the historical facts of the 
age immediately preceding their own, as Tacitus, 
Suetonius, and Dio. It will be my object in the 
present Lecture to show that these writers, and 
others of the same age or even earlier, bear copious 
witness to the facts recorded in the historical books 



1 Corinthians i. 26. 
Romans xvi. 23. 



c Philippians iv. 22. 
d Actsix. 15. 



Lect. VIII.] EPISTLE OF ST. BARNABAS. 213 

of the New Testament, and are plainly as convinced 
of their reality as of that of any facts whatever which 
they have occasion to mention. 

The Epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas by Clement 
of Alexandria (3) and Origen (4), whether really the 
work of that person or no, is at any rate one of the 
most ancient of the uninspired Christian writings, 
belonging as it does to the first, or to the early part 
of the second century (5). The writer's object is to 
explain the spiritual meaning of the Old Testament ; 
and in the course of his exposition he mentions as 
undoubted facts the miracles of Christ — his appoint- 
ment of his apostles — their number, twelve — his 
scourging — his being smitten on the face — his being 
set at nought and jested upon — his being arrayed in 
a scarlet robe — his crucifixion — his receiving gall and 
vinegar to drink — his death — the casting of lots upon 
his garment — his resurrection on the first day of the 
week — and his final ascension into heaven (6). All 
these notices moreover occur in a small tract, chiefly 
concerned with the Old Testament, and extending to 
no more than ten or twelve ordinary pages. 

An Epistle of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, to the 
Corinthians, is allowed on all hands to be genuine 
(7). This work was certainly composed in the first 
century, before some of the writings of St. John ; 
and its author, the " fellow-labourer " of St. Paul, e 
must have had frequent communication with those 
who had witnessed the great events in Judaea which 
formed the foundation of the new religion. The 

e Philippians iv. 3. 



214 EPISTLE OF CLEMENS ROMANUS. [Lect. VIII. 

object of the Epistle is to compose existing dissen- 
sions in the Corinthian Church, and its tone is from 
first to last hortatory and didactic. Historical allu- 
sions only find a place in it casually and incidentally. 
Yet it contains a mention of Christ's descent from 
Jacob, of his great power and regal dignity, his 
voluntary humiliation, his sufferings, the character 
of his teaching, his death for man, his resurrection, 
the mission of the apostles, their inspiration by the 
Holy Grhost, their preaching in many lands, their 
ordination of elders in every city, the special 
eminence in the church of Saints Peter and Paul, 
the sufferings of St. Peter, the hardships endured by 
St. Paul, his distant travels, his many imprison- 
ments, his flights, his stoning, his bonds, his testi- 
mony before rulers (8). The fact of St. Paul's 
having written an Epistle to the Corinthians is also 
asserted (9) ; and an allusion is made, in connexion 
with that Epistle, to the early troubles and divisions 
which the great Apostle had composed, when the 
several sections of the newly-planted Church strove 
together in a jealous spirit, affirming themselves to 
be " of Paul," or " of Apollos," or " of Cephas," or 
even " of Christ." 

Ignatius, second Bishop of Antioch, who succeeded 
to that see in about the year of the destruction of 
Jerusalem (10), and was martyred nearly forty years 
later, a. d. 107 (11), left behind him certain writings, 
which are quoted with great respect by subsequent 
Fathers, but the existence of which at the present 
day is questioned. Writings under the name of 



Lect. VIII.] EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS. 215 

Ignatius have come down to us in various shapes. 
Three Epistles, universally regarded as spurious (12), 
exist only in Latin. Twelve others are found in 
Greek, and also in two ancient Latin versions ; and 
of these, seven exist in two different forms — a longer, 
and a shorter one. Most modern critics accept these 
seven, in their shorter form, as genuine (13). They 
are identical with the seven mentioned by Eusebius 
and Jerome (14), and they are thought to be free 
from the internal difficulties, which cause suspicion to 
attach to the longer recension, as well as to the 
Epistles which those writers do not name. Doubts 
have however been recently started even with respect 
to these seven. The discovery in a very ancient 
MS. of a Syriac version of three Epistles only out of 
the seven, and these three in a still briefer form than 
that of the shorter Greek recension, together with 
the remarkable fact that the few early references 
which we possess to the writings of Ignatius are to 
passages in exactly these three compositions — has 
induced some learned men of our own day to adopt 
the view, that even the shorter Greek recension is 
largely interpolated, and that nothing beyond the 
three Epistles of the Syriac Version can be depended 
upon as certainly written by the Antiochian Bishop 
(15). If we adopt this opinion, the testimony of 
Ignatius to the historical truth of the New Testament 
narrative will be somewhat scanty — if we abide by 
the views generally prevalent before the Syriac 
version was discovered, and still maintained since 
that discovery by some divines of great learning and 



. 



216 EPISTLE OF ST. POLYCAEP, [Lect. VIII. 

excellent judgment (16), it will be as full and satis- 
factory as that borne by St. Clement. In the seven 
Epistles we find notices of the descent of Christ from 
David — his conception by the Holy Ghost — his birth 
of a virgin — her name, Mary — his manifestation by 
a star — his baptism by John — its motive, " that he 
might fulfil all righteousness" f — his appeals to the 
Prophets — the anointing of his head with ointment 
— his sufferings and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate 
and Herod the Tetrarch — his resurrection, not on the 
sabbath, but on the " Lord's day " — the resurrection 
through his power of some of the old prophets — his 
appearance to his disciples and command to them to 
" handle him and see " s that he was not a spirit — his 
eating and drinking with them after he had risen 
— the mission of the Apostles — their obedience to 
Christ — their authority over the Church — the inclu- 
sion of Saints Peter and Paul in their number (17). 
If, on the contrary, we confine ourselves to the 
Syriac version — by which the entire writings of St. 
Ignatius are comprised in about five pages (18) — we 
lose the greater portion of these testimonies, but we 
still retain those to the birth of Christ from the 
Yirgin Mary — his manifestation by a star — his many 
sufferings — his crucifixion — and the apostolic mission 
of Saints Peter and Paul. 

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of St. 

John, and a younger contemporary of Ignatius, left 

behind him a single Epistle, addressed to the Phil- 

lippians, which we possess in the original Greek, 

f Matt. iii. 15. s Luke xxiv. 39. 



Lect. VIII.] « THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.' 217 

with the exception of three or four sections, where 
the Greek text is wanting, and we have only a Latin 
version (19). In this Epistle, which is a short com- 
position, and, like the other remains of early Chris- 
tian antiquity, of a hortatory character, we find allu- 
sions to the humble life of Christ, his ministering to 
those about him, the character of his preaching, his 
sufferings, death upon the cross, resurrection, and 
ascension to heaven ; his promise to " raise up his 
disciples at the last day" h — the sufferings of St. Paul 
and the other Apostles, the preaching of St. Paul at 
Philippi, and the fact of his having written an Epis- 
tle to the Philippians (20). We also learn from 
Irenseus that this Father used to relate his conversa- 
tions with St. John and others, who had seen the 
Lord, and to repeat what they had told him both of 
the teaching and miracles of Jesus (21). 

A work of the first or earlier half of the second 
century has come down to us under the name of 
* The Shepherd of Hernias.' Eusebius and Jerome 
ascribe it to the Hennas who is saluted by St. Paul 
at the end of his Epistle to the Romans (22) ; but 
there are reasons for assigning it to a later Hermas 
— -the brother of Pius, who was the ninth Bishop of 
Rome (23). This work is an allegory on a large 
scale, and consequently cannot contain any direct 
historical testimony. Its tone is consonant with the 
Christian story, and it contains some allusions to the 
mission of the Apostles, their travels for the purpose 
of spreading the truth over the world, and the suffer- 
11 John vi. 40. 



/ 



218 'APOLOGY' OF QUADRATUS. [Lect. VIII. 

ings to which they were exposed in consequence 
(24) ; but on the whole it is of little service towards 
establishing the truth of any facts. 

It was not until the Christian writers addressed 
themselves to the world without — and either under- 
took the task of refuting the adversaries of the truth, 
or sought by Apologies to recommend the new reli- 
gion to their acceptance — that the facts of the Chris- 
tian story came naturally to occupy a prominent 
place in their compositions. Quadratus, Bishop of 
Athens in the early part of the second century, was, 
so far as we know, the first to write a defence of 
Christianity addressed to the Heathen, which he 
seems to have presented to the Emperor Adrian (25) 
about the year a. d. 122. This work is unfortu- 
nately lost, but a passage preserved by Eusebius 
gives us an indication of the sort of evidence which 
it would probably have furnished in abundance. 
" The works of our Saviour " says Quadratus, " were 
always conspicuous, for they were real ; both they 
which were healed and they which were raised from 
the dead ; who were seen not only when they were 
healed or raised, but for a long time afterwards ; not 
only while he dwelt on this earth, but also after his 
departure, and for a good while after it; insomuch 
that some of them have reached to our times " (26.) 

About twenty-five years after Quadratus had pre- 
sented his ' Apology ' to Adrian, his younger con- 
temporary, Justin, produced a similar composition, 
which he presented to the first Antonine, probably 
about A. d. 148 (27). Soon afterwards he published 



Lect. VIIIJ 'DIALOGUE' OF JUSTIN MARTYR. 219 

his ( Dialogue with Tryphon ' — an elaborate contro- 
versial work, defensive of Christianity from the 
attacks of Judaism. Finally, about a. d. 165, or a 
little earlier, he wrote a second ' Apology,' which he 
presented to Marcus Aurelius and the Roman Senate 
(28). It has been truly observed, that from the 
writings of this Father — " the earliest, of whose 
works we possess any considerable remains" (29) — 
there " might be collected a tolerably complete 
account of Christ's life, in all points agreeing with 
that which is delivered in our Scriptures " (30). 
Justin declares the marriage of Mary and Joseph — 
their descent from David— the miraculous conception 
of Christ — the intention of Joseph to put away his 
wife privily — the appearance to him of an angel 
which forbade him — the angelic determination of the 
name Jesus, with the reason assigned for it — the 
journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem — the birth of 
our Lord there — his lying in a manger — his circum- 
cision — -the extraordinary appearance of a star — the 
coming of the Wise Men — their application to Herod 
— their adoration and gifts — the warning to them 
not to return to Herod — the descent into Egypt — 
the massacre of the Innocents — the death of Herod and 
accession of Archelaus — the return from Egypt — the 
obscure early life of Christ, and his occupation as a 
carpenter — his baptism by St. John the Baptist in 
Jordan — the descent of the Spirit upon him in the 
form of a dove — the testimony borne to his great- 
ness by John — his temptation by the devil — the 
character of his teaching—his confutation of his 



220 NUMEROUS SUBSEQUENT WRITERS. [Lect. VIII. 

opponents — his miracles — his prophecies of the suf- 
ferings which should befall his disciples — his chang- 
ing Simon's name to Peter, and the occasion of it — 
his naming the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges — his 
triumphal entry into Jerusalem riding upon an ass — 
his institution of the Eucharist — his singing a hymn 
with his disciples — his visit to the Mount of Olives 
on the eve of his crucifixion, accompanied by the 
three favoured apostles, and the prayer there offered 
to the Father — his silence before Pilate — his being 
sent by Pilate to Herod — his sufferings and cruci- 
fixion — the mockery of those who stood by — the 
casting of lots for the garment — the flight of the 
apostles — the words on giving up the ghost — the 
burial at eventide — the resurrection on the third day 
— the appearances to the apostles — the explanation 
to them of the prophecies — the ascension into heaven 
as they were looking on — the preaching of the apos- 
tles afterwards — the descent of the Holy Ghost — the 
conversion of the Gentiles — the rapid spread of the 
Gospel through all lands (31). No one can pretend 
to doubt but that in Justin's time the facts of the 
New Testament History were received as simple 
truth — not only by himself, but by Christians gene- 
rally, in whose name his Apologies were written and 
presented to the Roman Emperors. 

It is needless to carry this demonstration further, 
or to produce similar lists from Athenagoras, Tertul- 
lian, Irenseus, Origen, and others. From the time 
of Justin the Church of Christ can shew a series of 
writers, who not only exhibit incidentally their belief 



Lect. VIII.] IMPLICIT FAITH OF EARLY WRITERS. 221 

of the facts which form the basis of the Christian 
Religion, but who also testify explicitly to the uni- 
versal reception among Christians of that narrative 
of the facts which we possess in the New Testament 
— a narrative which, as was shewn in the last Lec- 
ture (32), they maintain to be absolutely and in all 
respects true. Those who assert the mythic charac- 
ter of the New Testament history, must admit as 
certain that its mythic character was unsuspected by 
the Christians of the second century, who received 
with the most entire and simple faith the whole mass 
of facts put forth in the Gospels and the Acts, regard- 
ing them as real and actual occurrences, and appeal- 
ing to profane history for their confirmation in 
various most important particulars. To fair and 
candid minds the evidence adduced from uninspired 
writers of the first century, though comparatively 
scanty, is (I think) sufficient to shew that their belief 
was the same as that of Christians in the second, and 
that it was just as firm and undoubting. 

The arguments hitherto adduced have been drawn 
from the literary compositions of the first ages of 
Christianity. Till recently these have been gene- 
rally regarded as presenting the whole existing proof 
of the faith and practice of the early Church : and 
sceptics have therefore been eager to throw every 
possible doubt upon them, and to maintain that for- 
gery and interpolation have so vitiated this source of 
knowledge as to render it altogether untrustworthy 
(33). The efforts made, weak and contemptible as 
they are felt to be by scholars and critics, have 



222 PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN MONUMENTS. [Lect. VIII. 

nevertheless had a certain influence over the general 
tone of thought on the subject, and have caused 
many to regard the early infancy of Christianity as 
a dim and shadowy cloud-land, in which nothing is 
to be seen, except a few figures of bishops and mar- 
tyrs moving uncertainly amid the general darkness. 
Under these circumstances it is well that attention 
should be called — as it has been called recently by 
several publications of greater or less research (34) — 
to the monumental remains of early Christian times 
which are still extant, and which take us back in the 
most lively way to the first ages of the Church, 
exhibiting before our eyes those primitive communi- 
ties, which Apostles founded, over which Apostolic 
men presided, and in which Confessors and Martyrs 
were almost as numerous as ordinary Christians. 
As when we tread the streets of Pompeii, we have 
the life of the old Pagan world brought before us 
with a vividness which makes all other representa- 
tions appear dull and tame, so when we descend into 
the Catacombs of Rome we seem to see the struggling 
persecuted community, which there, " in dens and 
caves of the earth," 1 wrought itself a hidden home, 
whence it went forth at last conquering and to con- 
quer, triumphantly establishing itself on the ruins of 
the old religion, and bending its heathen persecutors 
to the yoke of Christ. Time was when the guiding 
spirits of our Church not only neglected the study of 
these precious remnants of an antiquity which ought 
to be far dearer to us than that of Greece or Pagan 
x Heb. xi. 38. 



Lect. VIII.] THE CATACOMBS OF ROME. 223 

Rome, of Egypt, Assyria or Babylon — but even ven- 
tured to speak of them with contempt, as the recent 
creations of Papal forgers, who had placed among 
the arenarice or sandpits of heathen times the preten- 
ded memorials of saints who were never born, and of 
martyrs who never suffered (35). But with increased 
learning and improved candour modern Anglicanism 
has renounced this shallow and untenable theory; 
and it is at length admitted universally, alike by the 
Protestant and the Romanist, that the Catacombs 
themselves, their present contents, and the series of 
inscriptions which have been taken from them and 
placed in the Papal galleries, are genuine remains of 
primitive Christian antiquity, and exhibit to us — im- 
perfectly, no doubt, but so far as their evidence 
extends, truly — the condition and belief of the 
Church of Christ in the first ages. 

For it is impossible to doubt that the Catacombs 
belong to the earliest times of Christianity. It was 
only during the ages of persecution that the Christians 
were content to hide away the memorials of their 
dead in gloomy galleries deep below the earth's sur- 
face, where few eyes could ever rest on them. With 
liberty and security came the practice of burying 
within, and around, the churches, which grew up on 
all sides ; and though undoubtedly the ancient burial- 
places would not have been deserted all at once, since 
habit and affection would combine to prevent such 
disuse, yet still from the time of Constantine burying 
in the Catacombs must have been on the decline, and 
the bulk of the tombs in them must be regarded as 



224 VAST NUMBERS OF CHRISTIAN GRAVES. [Lect. VIII. 

belonging to the first three centuries. The fixed 
dates obtainable from a certain number of the tombs 
confirm this view ; and the style of ornamentation 
and form of the letters used in the inscriptions, are 
thought to be additional evidence of its correctness. 

What then is the evidence of the Catacombs ? In 
the first place, it is conclusive as to the vast number 
of the Christians in these early ages, when there was 
nothing to tempt men, and everything to disincline 
them, towards embracing the persecuted faith. The 
Catacombs are calculated to extend over nine hundred 
miles of streets, and to contain almost seven millions 
of graves (36)! The Roman Christians, it will be 
remembered, are called by Tacitus " a vast multitude" 
— (ingens multitudo)— in the time of Nero (37) ; by 
the age of Valerian they are reckoned at one-half the 
population of the city (38) ; but the historical records 
of the past have never been thought to indicate that 
their number approached at all near to what this cal- 
culation — which seems fairly made (3 9) — would indi- 
cate. Seven millions of deaths in (say) four hundred 
years would, under ordinary circumstances, imply an 
average population of from 500,000 to 700,000 — an 
amount immensely beyond any estimate that has 
hitherto been made of the number of Roman Christians 
at any portion of the period. Perhaps the calculation 
of the number of graves may be exaggerated, and 
probably the proportion of deaths to population was, 
under the peculiar circumstances, unusually large ; 
but still the evidence of vast numbers which the Ca- 
tacombs furnish cannot wholly mislead ; and we may 



Lect. VIII.] SUFFERINGS OF EARLY CHRISTIANS. 225 

regard it as established beyond all reasonable doubt, 
that in spite of the general contempt and hatred, in 
spite of the constant ill-usage to which they were 
exposed, and the occasional " fiery trials " which 
proved them, the Christians, as . early as the second 
century, formed one of the chief elements in the 
population of Rome. 

In the next place, the Catacombs afford proof of 
the dangers and sufferings to which the early 
Christians were exposed. Without assuming that the 
phials which have contained a red liquid, found in so 
many of the tombs, must have held blood, and that 
therefore they are certain signs of martyrdom, and 
without regarding the joalm-branch as unmistakable 
evidence of the same (40) — we may find in the Cata- 
combs a good deal of testimony confirmatory of those 
writers who estimate at the highest the number of 
Christians who suffered death in the great perse- 
cutions. The number of graves, if we place it at the 
lowest, compared with the highest estimate of the 
Christian population that is at all probable, would 
give a proportion of deaths to population enormously 
above the average — a result which at any rate lends 
support to those who assert that in the persecutions 
of Aurelius, Decius, Diocletian, and others, vast mul- 
titudes of Christians were massacred. Further, the 
word Martyr is frequent upon the tombs ; and often 
where it is absent, the inscription otherwise shows 
that the deceased lost his life on account of his religion 
(41). Sometimes the view opens on us, and we see, 
besides the individual buried, a long vista of similar 

Q 



226 EMBLEMS OF FAITH ON THE MONUMENTS, [Lect.YIII. 

sufferers — as when one of Aurelius's victims exclaims 
— " unhappy times, in which amid our sacred rites 
and prayers — nay, in our very caverns, we are not 
safe ! What is more wretched than our life ? What 
more wretched than a death, when it is impossible to 
obtain burial at the hands of friends or relatives ? 
Still at the end they shine like stars in Heaven. A 
poor life is his who has lived in Christian times ! " — 
" tempora infausta ! quibus inter sacra et vota ne 
in cavernis quidem salvari possimus. Quid miserius 
vita ? Sed quid miserius in morte, cum ab amicis et 
parentibus sepeliri nequeant ? Tandem in ccelo co- 
ruscant ! Parum vixit qui vixit in Ohristianis tem- 
poralis" (42). 

Again, the Catacombs furnish a certain amount of 
evidence with respect to the belief of the early 
Christians. The doctrine of the resurrection is 
implied or expressed on almost every tombstone 
which has been discovered. The Christian is not 
dead — he " rests" or " sleeps " — he is not buried, but 
li deposited" in his grave (43) — and he is always "at 
peace," (in pace). The survivors do not mourn his loss 
despairingly, but express trust, resignation, or moderate 
grief (44). The Anchor, indicative of the Christian's 
" sure and certain hope," is a common emblem ; and 
the Phoenix and Peacock are used as more speaking 
signs of the Resurrection. The Cross appears, though 
not the Crucifix ; and other emblems are employed, 
as the Dove and the Cock, which indicate belief in the 
sacred narrative as we possess it. There are also a 
certain number of pictures in the Catacombs; and 



Lect. VIII.] PICTURES OP THE SACRED NARRATIVE. 227 

these represent ordinarily historical scenes from the 
Old or New Testament, treated in a uniform and con- 
ventional way, but clearly expressive of belief in the 
facts thus represented. The Temptation of Eve — 
Moses striking the rock — Noah welcoming the return 
of the Dove — Elijah ascending to heaven — Daniel 
among the lions — Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego 
in the fiery furnace — Jonah under the gourd — Jonah 
swallowed by the whale — and Jonah vomited out on 
the dry land, are the favourite subjects from the Old 
Testament ; while from the New Testament we find 
the Adoration of the Wise Men- — their interview with 
Herod — the Baptism of Christ by John the Baptist — 
the healing of the Paralytic — the turning of the water 
into wine — the feeding of the five thousand — the 
raising of Lazarus — the Last Supper — Peter walking 
on the sea — and Pilate washing his hands before the 
people (45). St. Peter and St. Paul are also fre- 
quently represented, and St. Peter sometimes bears 
the Keys, in plain allusion to the gracious promise of 
his Master. j The parabolic teaching of our Lord is 
sometimes. embodied by the artists, who never tire of 
repeating the type of the " Good Shepherd " — and 
who occasionally represent the Sower going out to 
sow, and the parable of the Wise and Foolish Vir- 
gins. In this way indirect evidence is borne to the 
historic belief of the early Church, which does not 
appear to have differed at all from that of orthodox 
Christendom at the present day. 

If it be still said — Why are we to believe as they ? 
' Matt. xiv. 19. 

Q 2 



228 SHREWDNESS OF GREEKS AND ROMANS. [Lect. VIII. 

— why are we in this enlightened nineteenth century 
to receive as facts, what Greeks and Romans in an 
uncritical and credulous age accepted without en- 
quiry, or at least without any searching investigation ? 
— the answer is two-fold. Allowing that the bulk of 
men in the first and second centuries were uncritical 
and credulous with respect to remote times, and to 
such tales as did not concern action or involve any 
alteration of conduct, we may remark that it is untrue 
to represent them as credulous where their worldly 
interests were at stake, or where any practical result 
was to follow upon their belief of what they heard. 
They are not found to have offered themselves a ready 
prey to impostors, or to have allowed themselves to be 
carried away by the arts of pretenders, where such 
weakness would have brought them into trouble. 
We do not find that Simon Magus or Apollonius of 
Tyana had many followers. When the slave Clemens 
gave himself out to be Posthumus Agrippa, though 
the wishes of most men must have been in favour of 
his claims, very few appear to have really believed 
in them (46). The Romans, and still more the 
Greeks, had plenty of shrewdness ; and there was no 
people less likely than they to accept on slight 
grounds a religion involving such obligations as the 
Christian. It is important to bear in mind what con- 
version really meant in the early times. It meant the 
severing of family and social ties — the renunciation 
of worldly prospects — abstinence from all gaities and 
amusements — perpetual exposure to insults — cold 
looks, contemptuous gestures, abusive words, inju- 



Lect. V11L] COST OF EMBBACING CHRISTIANITY. 229 

rious suspicions, a perpetual sense of danger, a life to 
lead which was to " die daily." k " The early Chris- 
tians," it has been well said, " were separate from 
other men. Their religion snapt asunder the ties of 
a common intercourse. It called them to a new life, 
it gave them new sentiments, hopes, and desires, a 
new character ; it demanded of them such a conscien- 
tious and steady performance of duty as had hardly 
before been conceived of; it subjected them to priva- 
tions and insults, to uncertainty and danger ; it 
required them to prepare for torments and death. 
Every day of their lives they were strongly reminded 
of it by the duties which it enforced and the sacrifices 
which it cost them" (47). Before accepting such a 
position, we may be well assured that each convert 
scanned narrowly the evidence upon which he was 
invited to make a change in every way so momen- 
tous. When they first heard the doctrine of the 
resurrection, the Athenians " mocked." l Yet after a 
while Dionysius and others " clave to Paul and 
believed " m — surely because they found the evidence 
of the resurrection of Christ such as could not be 
resisted. It must be remembered that the prospect 
of his own resurrection was all that the new convert 
had to sustain him. "If in this life only we have 
hope, we are of all men most miserable," says St. 
Paul. n And the prospect of his own resurrection was 
bound up inseparably with the fact of Christ's having 
risen. If Christ were not risen, preaching was vain, 

k 1 Cor. xv. 31. l Acts xvii. 32. m Ibid, verse 34. n 1 Cor. xv. 19. 



230 CONTINUANCE OF MIKACULOUS POWEES. [Lect. VIII. 

and faith was vain — then all who fell asleep in 
Christ perished. p The Christian was taught to base 
his hope of a happy future for himself solely and en- 
tirely upon the resurrection and ascent to heaven of 
Jesus. Surely the evidence for these facts must have 
been thousands of times closely sifted by converts who 
could fairly demand to have the assurances on the 
point of eye-witnesses. 

Further, we must not forget that the early con- 
verts had a second ground of belief, besides and 
beyond their conviction of the honesty and trust- 
worthiness of those who came forward to preach 
the Gospel, declaring themselves witnesses of the 
" mighty works ' ,q which Christ had wrought, and 
pre-eminently of his resurrection. These preachers 
persuaded, not merely by their evident truthfulness 
and sincerity, but by the miraculous powers which 
they wielded. There is good evidence that the 
ability to work miracles was not confined to the 
apostolic age. The bishops and others who pressed 
to see Ignatius on his way to martyrdom, " ex- 
pected that he would communicate to them some 
spiritual gift" (48). Papias related various miracles 
as having happened in his own life-time — among 
others that a dead man had been restored to life (49). 
Justin Martyr declares very simply that in his day 
both men and women were found who possessed 
miraculous powers (50). Quadratus, the Apologist, 
is mentioned by a writer of the second century as 
exercising them (51). Irenseus speaks of miracles 

1 Cor. xv. 14. v Ibid, verse 18. q Mark vi. 2. 



Lect. VIII.] MIRACLES PROVE DIVINE COMMISSION. 231 

as still common in Gaul when he wrote (52), 
which was nearly at the close of the second century. 
Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, and Minucius 
Felix, authors of about the same period, are witnesses 
to the continuance to their day of at least one class 
of miracles (53). Thus the existence of these powers 
was contemporaneous with the great spread of the 
Gospel ; and it accounts for that speedy conversion 
of thousands upon thousands — that rapid growth of 
the Church in all quarters — which would be other- 
wise so astonishing. The vast number of the early 
converts and the possession of miraculous powers — 
which are both asserted by the primitive writers 
(54) — have the relation of effect to cause, and lend 
countenance to one another. The evidence of the 
Catacombs, and the testimony of Pagans, confirm the 
truth of the representations made in the one case. 
Unless we hold miracles to be impossible, we cannot 
reasonably doubt them in the other. 

But the possession of miraculous powers by those 
who spread the Gospel abroad in the first ages, 
would alone and by itself prove the divinity of the 
Christian Religion. God would not have given 
supernatural aid to persons engaged in propagating 
a lie, nor have assisted them to palm a deceit upon 
the world in His name. If then there be good 
evidence of this fact — if it be plain from the eccle- 
siastical writers that miracles were common in the 
Christian Church for above two centuries — we have 
herein an argument of an historical character, which 
is of no small weight and importance, additional to 



232 VALUE OF MARTYRS' TESTIMONY- [ Lr ct. VIII. 

that arising from the mere confirmation by early 
uninspired writers of the Sacred Narrative. We 
find in their statements with respect to these con- 
temporary facts, to which they are unexceptionable 
witnesses, a further evidence of the truth of the 
Eeligion whereof they were the ministers-- a fur- 
ther proof that Christianity was not of man but 
of God. 

And here let me notice that in judging of the 
value which is to be attached to the testimony of the 
early Christians, we should constantly bear in mind 
that all in will, and most in fact, sealed that testi- 
mony with their blood. If civil justice acts upon a 
sound principle, when it assigns special weight to the 
depositions of those who have the prospect of imme- 
diate death before their eyes, Christians must be 
right to value highly the witness of the first ages. 
The early converts knew that they might at any 
time be called upon to undergo death for their 
religion. They preached and taught, with the sword, 
the cross, the beasts, and the stake, ever before their 
eyes. Most of those in eminent positions — and to 
this class belong almost all our witnesses — were 
martyred. Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Quadratus, 
Justin, Irenseus, certainly suffered death on account 
of their religion ; and every early writer advocating 
Christianity, bj the fact of his advocacy, braved the 
civil power, and rendered himself liable to a similar 
fate. "When faith is a matter of life and death, men 
do not lightly take up with the first creed which 
happens to hit their fancy ; nor do they place them- 



Lect. VIII.] CHARGE OF INFATUATION ABSURD. 233 

selves openly in the ranks of a persecuted sect, 
unless they have we]l weighed the claims of the 
religion which it professes, and convinced themselves 
of its being the truth. It is clear that the early con- 
verts had means of ascertaining the historic accuracy 
of the Christian narrative very much beyond our- 
selves ; they could examine and cross-question the 
witnesses — compare their several accounts — enquire 
how their statements were met by their adversaries — 
consult Heathen documents of the time — thoroughly 
and completely sift the evidence. To assume that 
they did not do so, when the issue was of such vast 
importance — when, in accepting the religion they set 
their all upon the cast, embracing as their certain 
portion in this life, shame, contempt, and ignominy, 
the severance of family ties, exclusion from all festal 
gatherings, loss of friends, loss of worldly position, 
loss of character, — and looking forward to probable 
participation in the cruelest sufferings — the rack, 
the scourge, the pincing-irons, the cross, the stake, 
the ravening beasts of the amphitheatre — to assume 
this, is to deny them that average common sense and 
instinctive regard for their own interests which the 
mass of mankind possess in all times and countries — 
to look upon them as under the influence of an in- 
fatuation, such as cannot be shewn to have at any time 
affected large bodies of civilised men. If we grant 
to the early converts an average amount of sense 
and intellect, we must accord to their witness all the 
weight that is due to those, who having ample means 
of investigating a matter in which they are deeply 



234 SUMMAEY OF NEW TESTAMENT PEEIOD. [Lect. YIII. 

concerned, have done so, and determined it in a par- 
ticular way. 

The enquiry in which we have been engaged here 
terminates. We have found that the historical 
Books of the New Testament are the productions of 
contemporaries and eye-witnesses — that two at least 
of those who wrote lives of Christ were his close and 
intimate friends, while the account of the early 
Church delivered in the Acts was written by a 
companion of the Apostles — that the truth of the 
narrative contained in these writings is evidenced by 
their sober, simple, and unexaggerated tone, and by 
their agreement, often undesigned, with each other — 
that it is further confined by the incidental allusions 
to it which are found in the speeches of the Apostles 
and in their epistolary correspondence with their 
converts — that its main facts are noticed, so far as it 
was to be expected that they would be noticed, by 
profane writers, while a comparison of its secondary 
or incidental facts with the civil history of the times, 
as otherwise known to us, reveals an agreement 
which is at once so multitudinous and so minute 
as to constitute, in the eyes of all those who are 
capable of weighing historical evidence, an over- 
whelming argument in proof of the authenticity of 
the whole story — that the narrative w T as accepted as 
simple truth, soon after it was published, in most 
parts of the civilised world, and not by the vulgar 
only, but by men of education and refinement, and of 
good worldly position — that it was received and 
believed, at the time when the truth of every part of 



Lect. VIII.] SUMMARY OF NEW TESTAMENT PERIOD. 235 

it could be readily tested, by many hundreds of thou- 
sands, notwithstanding the prejudices of education, 
and the sacrifices which its acceptance involved — and 
finally, that the sincerity of these persons' belief was 
in many cases tested in the most searching of all 
possible ways, by persecutions of the cruelest kind, 
and triumphantly stood the test — so that the Church 
counted her Martyrs by thousands. We have fur- 
ther seen, that there is reason to believe, that not 
only our Lord Himself and His Apostles, but many 
(if not most) of the first propagators of Christianity 
had the power of working miracles ; and that this, 
and this only, will account for the remarkable facts, 
which none can deny, of the rapid spread of the 
Gospel and the vast numbers of the early converts. 
All this together — and it must be remembered that 
the evidence is cumulative — constitutes a body of proof 
such as is seldom producible with respect to any events 
belonging to remote times ; and establishes beyond 
all reasonable doubt the truth of the Christian Story. 
In no single respect — if we except the fact that it is 
miraculous — has that story a mythic character. It 
is a single story, told without variation (55), where- 
as myths are fluctuating and multiform ; it is blended 
inextricably with the civil history of the times, 
which it everywhere represents with extraordinary 
accuracy, whereas myths distort or supersede civil 
history; it is full of prosaic detail, which myths 
studiously eschew ; it abounds with practical instruc- 
tion of the plainest and simplest kind, whereas 
myths teach by allegory. Even in its miraculous 



236 CONCLUSION. [Lect. VIII. 

element, it stands to some extent in contrast with all 
known mythologies — where the marvellous has ever 
a predominant character of grotesqueness, which is 
entirely absent from the New Testament miracles 
(56). Simple earnestness, fidelity, painstaking ac- 
curacy, pure love of truth, are the most patent 
characteristics of the New Testament writers, who 
evidently deal with facts, not with fancies, and are 
employed in relating a history, not in developing an 
idea. They write " that we may know the certainty 
of those things" 1- which were "most surely believed" 8 
in their day. They bear record of what they have 
seen,* and assure us that their " testimony is true." u 
" That which they have heard, which they have seen 
with their eyes, which they have looked upon, which 
their hands have handled of the Word of Life, that 
was manifested unto them — that which they have 
seen and heard " declare they unto us. v And such 
as were not eye-witnesses, deliver only " that which 
they also received." w I know not how stronger 
words could have been used to preclude the notion 
of that plastic growing myth which Strauss con- 
ceives Christianity to have been in Apostolic times, 
and to convince us of its Historic character. And 
the declarations of the Sacred writers are confirmed 
by modern research. In spite of all the efforts of an 
" audacious criticism " — as ignorant as bold — the 
truth of the Sacred Narrative stands firm, the 



Luke i. 4. 
Ibid, verse 1. 
Johu xix. 35. 



John xxi. 24. 
1 John i. 1-3. 
1 Cor. xv. 3. 



Legt. VIII.] CONCLUSION. 237 

stronger for the shocks that it has resisted ; " the 
boundless store of truth and life which for eighteen 
centuries has been the aliment of humanity " is not 
(as Rationalism boasts) "dissipated" (57). God is 
not " divested of his grace, or man of his dignity " 
— nor is the " tie between heaven and earth 
broken." The " foundation of God "—the " Ever- 
lasting Gospel " x — still " standeth sure " y — and every 
effort that is made to overthrow, does but more 
firmly establish it. 

x Rev. xiv. 6. * 2 Tim. ii. 19. 



NOTES. 



LECTURE I. 

Note ( 1 ), p. 2. 
Herodotus, whose easy faith would naturally lead him to 
accept the Greek myths without difficulty, still makes a 
marked distinction between Mythology and History Proper. 
See bk. iii. ch. 122, where the 0a\aaao/cparia of Poly crates is 
spoken of as something different in kind from that of the 
mythical Minos ; and compare a somewhat similar distinction 
between the mythic and the historical in bk. i. ch. 5, and again 
in bk. ii. ch. 44, ad fin. A difference of the same kind seems 
to have been made by the Egyptian and Babylonian writers. 
See Lecture II. p. 45. 

Note ( 2 ), p. 2. 
This distinction was, I believe, first taken by George in his 
work Mythus und Sage ; Versuch drier ivissenschaftlichen Ent- 
wichlung dieser Begriffe und Hires Verhdltnisses zum christlichen 
Qlauben. It is adopted by Strauss (Leben Jesu, Einleitung, 
§ 10 ; vol. i. pp. 41-3, Chapman's Translation), who thus 
distinguishes the two : " Mythus is the creation of a fact out 
of an idea ; legend the seeing of an idea in a fact, or arising 
out of it." The myth is therefore pure and absolute imagi- 
nation ; the legend has a basis of fact, but amplifies, abridges, 
or modifies that basis at its pleasure. De Wette thus expresses 
the difference: "Der Mythus ist eine in Thatsachen einge- 
kleidete Idee; die Sage enthalt Thatsachen, von Ideen 
durchdrungen und umgebilclet." (Einleitung in das alte Test. 
§ 136, d.) Compare Professor Powell's Third Series of Essays, 
Essay iii. p. 340. "A myth is a doctrine expressed in a 
narrative form ; an abstract moral or spiritual truth drama- 
tised in action and personification, where the object is to 
enforce faith, not in the parable, but in the moral." 



240 NOTES. [Lect. I. 

Note ( 3 ), p. 2. 

" The mission of the ancient prophets," says Gibbon, " of 
Moses and of Jesus, had been confirmed by many splendid pro- 
digies ; and Mahomet was repeatedly urged by the inhabitants 
of Mecca and Medina to produce a similar evidence of his 
divine legation ; to call down from heaven the angel or the 
volume of his revelation, to create a garden in the desert, or 
to kindle a conflagration in the unbelieving city. As often as 
he is pressed by the demands of the Koreish, he involves him- 
self in the obscure boast of vision and prophecy, appeals to the 
internal proofs of his doctrine, and shields himself behind the 
Providence of God, who refuses those signs and wonders that 
would depreciate the merit of faith, and aggravate the guilt 
of infidelity. But the modest or angry tone of his apologies 
betrays his weakness and vexation; and these passages of 
scandal establish beyond suspicion the integrity of the Koran. 
The votaries of Mahomet are more assured than himself of 
his miraculous gifts, and their confidence and credulity increase 
as they are further removed from the time and place of his 
spiritual exploits." Decline and Fall, vol. v. ch. 1. p. 210. Com- 
pare with this acknowledgment on the part of an enemy of 
Christianity, the similar statements of its defenders. (Butler, 
Analogy, Part ii. ch. vii. ; Paley, Evidences, Part ii. ch. ix. 
§ 3 ; White, Bampton Lectures, Sermon vi. p. 254 ; Forster, 
Mahometanism Unveiled, vol. i. p. 32; and Dr. Macbride, 
Mohammedan Religion Explained., pp. 28-9. Ockley, a very 
unprejudiced writer, observes, that " when the impostor was 
called upon, as he often was, to work miracles in proof of his 
divine mission, he excused himself by various pretences, and 
appealed to the Koran as a standing miracle." {Life of 
Mohammed, pp. 65-6, Bonn's Ed.) He also remarks, that 
there was no proof of his visions or intercourse with angels 
beyond his own assertions ; and that, on the occasion of the 
pretended night-journey to heaven, Ayesha testified that he 
did not leave his bed. (Ibid. p. 20, note.) 

. Note ( 4 ), p. 2. 

See Butler's Analogy, Part ii. ch. vii ; Paley's Evidences, 
Part iii. ch. viii. ; and Rev. R. Michel! V. Bampton Lectures, 



Lect. I.] NOTES. 241 

Lecture iv. pp. 124-129. Dr. Stanley tersely expresses the 
contrast between the Christian and other religions in this 
respect, when he says of Christianity, that it " alone, of all 
religions, claims to be founded not on fancy or feeling, but on 
Fact and Truth." (Sinai and Palestine, ch. ii. p. 155.) 

Note (5), p. 3. 
Butler's Analogy, Part ii. ch. vii. p. 311. 

Note ( 6 ), p. 4. 
See Sir G. C. Lewis's Inquiry into the Credibility of the 
Early Roman History, vol. i. Introduction, p. 2. 

Note ( 7 ), p. 5. 

M. cle Pouilly's Dissertation sur V Incertitude et VHistoire des 
quatre premiers Siecles de Borne, which was published in the 
ninth volume of the Memoir es de V Academic des Inscriptions, 
constitutes an era in the study of ancient history. Earlier 
scholars had doubted this or that narrative of an ancient 
author ; but M. de Pouilly seems to have been the first to 
"lay down with clearness and accuracy the principles" by 
which the historic value of an author's accounts of early times 
is to be tested. His " Dissertation " was read in December, 
1722 ; and a second Memoir on the same subject was furnished 
by him to the Memoires soon afterwards, and forms a part of 
the same volume. (See Sir G. C. Lewis's Inquiry, vol. i. ch* i. 
p. 5, note 11.) 

M. de Beaufort, who has generally been regarded as the 
founder of the modern Historical Criticism, did not publish 
his Dissertation sur V Incertitude des cinq premiers Siecles de 
VHistoire Bomaine till sixteen years after Pouilly, as this 
work- first appeared at Utrecht in 1738. His merits are 
recognised to some extent by Niebuhr (Hist, of Borne, vol. i. 
pref. of 1826, p. vii. E. T. ; and Lectures on Boman History, 
vol. i. p. 148, E. T.) 

Note (8), p. 5. 

Niebuhr's views are most fully developed in his Boman 
History (first published in 1811-1812, and afterwards re- 
printed with large additions and alterations in 1827-1832), 

R 



242 NOTES. [Lect. I. 

and in his Lectures on the History of Rome, delivered at Bonn, 
and published in 1846. They also appear in many of his 
Kleine Schriftm, and in his Lectures on Ancient History, 
delivered at Bonn in 1826, and again in 1829-1830, which 
were published after his decease by his son. Most of these 
works have received an English dress, and are well known to 
students. 

Note ( 9 ), p. 5. 

So early as 1817, Karl Otfried Miiller, in a little tract, 
called JEginetica, gave promise of excellence as an historical 
critic. His Orchomenus und die Minyer soon followed, and 
established his reputation. He is perhaps best known in 
England by his Dorians (published in 1824, and translated 
into English by Mr^H. Tufnell and Sir G. C. Lewis in 1830), 
a work of great value, but not free from minor blemishes. 
(See Mr. Grote's History of Greece, vol. ii. p. 530, &c.) 

Note ( 10 ), p. 5. 
Bockh is best known in England by his book on the Public 
Economy of Athens {Staatshaushaltung der Athener), published 
in Berlin in the year 1817, and translated into English in 
1828 (London, Murray). But his great work is the Corpus 
Inscriptionum Groscarum, in four large folio volumes, published 
at Berlin between 1825 and 1832." In this he shews himself 
an historical critic of the first order. 

Note ( 11 ), p. 5. 
I refer especially to Bishop Thirlwall, Mr. Grote, Colonel 
Mure, Mr. Merivale, and Sir G. C. Lewis. The name of 
Dr. Arnold should also be mentioned as that of one to whom 
historical criticism in England owes much. 

Note ( 12 ), p. 6. 
See Colonel Mure's Remarks on Two Appendices to Mr. 
Grote s History of Greece (London, Longman, 1851) ; and 
an excellent article in the Edinburgh Keview for July 1856 
(No. 211, Art. I.),. in which the extreme conclusions of Sir 
G. C. Lewis on the subject of early Koman History are ably 
combated. 



Lect. l.] notes. 243 

Note (13), p. 7. 

The subjoined extract from the correspondence of Niebuhr 
has been already given in the work of my immediate prede- 
cessor in the office of Bampton Lecturer (see the notes to 
Mr. Mansel's Lectures, pp. 321-2) ; but its importance is so 
great, that I cannot forbear to cite it here. " In my opinion," 
wrote Mebuhr in the year 1818, "he is not a Protestant 
Christian who does not receive the historical facts of Christ's 
early life, in their literal acceptation, with all their miracles, 
as equally authentic with any event recorded in history, and 
whose belief in them is not as firm and tranquil as his belief 
in the latter; who has not the most absolute faith in the 
articles of the Apostles' Creed, taken in their grammatical 
sense ; who does not consider every doctrine and every pre- 
cept of the New Testament as undoubted divine revelation, in 
the sense of the Christians of the first century, who knew 
nothing of a Theopneustia. Moreover, a Christianity after 
the fashion of the modern philosophers and pantheists, without 
a personal Cod, without immortality, without human individu- 
ality, without historical faith, is no Christianity at all to me ; 
though it may be a very intellectual, very ingenious philo- 
sophy. I have often said that I do not know what to do with 
a metaphysical God, and that I will have none but the God 
of the Bible, who is heart to heart with us." a The general 
orthodoxy of Niebuhr with respect to the Old Testament 
History is plain from his Lectures on Ancient History (vol. i. 
p. 20, 37, 128, 132, &c.) ; though, as will be noticed here- 
after, he is not always quite consistent on the point. See 
below, notes 34, and 36. 

Note (14), p. 8. 

Eichhorn, in his examination of the Wolfenbiittel Frag- 
ments {Recension der iibrigen, noch ungedrucTcten WerJce des 
Wolfenbuttlischen Fragmentisten, in Eichhorn's Allgemeiner 
Bibliothelc for 1787, vol. i. parts i. and ii.), was, I believe, the 
first to draw this comparison. "Divine interpositions," he 
argued, "must be alike admitted, or alike denied, in the 

a Life and Letters of B. G. Nie- I ter ccxxxi. vol. ii. pp. 103-5, and 
buhr, vol. ii. p. 123. Compare Let- | Letter cccxxix. vol. ii. p. 315. 

R 2 



244: NOTES. [Lect. I. 

primitive histories of all people. It was the practice of all 
nations, of the Grecians as well as the Orientals, to refer 
every unexpected or inexplicable occurrence immediately to 
the Deity. The sages of antiquity lived in continual com- 
munion with superior intelligences. Whilst these represen- 
tations were commonly understood, in reference to the 
Hebrew legends, verbally and literally, it had been customary 
to explain similar representations in the Pagan histories by 
presupposing either deception and gross falsehood, or the 
misinterpretation and corruption of tradition. But justice 
evidently required that Hebrew and Pagan history should be 
treated in the same way." See the summary of Eichhorn's 
views and reasonings in Strauss's Lehen Jesu, § 6 (vol. i. 
pp. 15-18, E. T.) The views thus broached were further 
carried out by Gabler, Schelling, and Bauer. The last-named 
author remarked, that " the earliest records of all nations 
were mythical : why should the writings of the Hebrews form 
a solitary exception? — whereas in point of fact a cursory 
glance at their sacred books proved that they also contain 
mythical elements." See his Hebrdische Mythologie des Alien 
und Neuen Testaments, published in 1802. 

Note (15), p. 8. 

See the works above cited, and compare an article in 
Bertholdt's Kritische Journal, vol. v. § 235. See also Theo- 
dore Parker's De Wette, vol. ii. p. 198. 

Note (16), p. 8. 

So Vatke {Religion des Alien Testamentes, § 23, p. 289 et 
seqq.) and De Wette, Archdologie, § 30-34. Baron Bunsen 
takes the same view. See below, notes 39 and 44. 

Note ( 17 ), p. 8. 

Vatke (1. s. c.) regards the " significant names " of Saul, 
David, and Solomon, as proof of the legendary character 
which attaches to the books of Samuel. Von Bohlen argues 
similarly with respect to the ancestors of Abraham. (Alte 
Indien, p. 155.) 



Lect. I.] NOTES. 245 

Note ( 18 ), p. 8. 
Semler, towards the close of the last century, pronounced 
the histories of Samson and Esther to be myths ; Eichhorn, 
early in the present, assigned the same character to the 
Mosaic accounts of the Creation and the Fall. (See Strauss 's 
Introduction, Leben Jesu, vol. i. pp. 21 and 24, E. T.) 

Note ( 19 ), p. 9. 
" Tradition," says De Wette, " is uncritical and partial ; its 
tendency is not historical, but rather patriotic and poetical. 
And since the patriotic sentiment is gratified by all that 
flatters national pride, the more splendid, the more honour- 
able, the more wonderful the narrative, the more acceptable 
it is ; and where tradition has left any blanks, imagination at 
once steps in and fills them up. And since," he continues, 
" a great part of the historical books of the Old Testament 
bears this stamp, it has hitherto been believed possible," &c. 
{Kritik der Israelitischen Geschichte, Einleitung, § 10.) Com- 
pare Yater's Abhandlung ilber Moses und die Verfasser des 
Pentateuchs in the third volume of his Comment, ilber den 
Pentateuch, § 660. 

Note ( 20 ), p. 9. 
This was the aim of the School called technically Eatio- 
nalists, in Germany, of which Eichhorn and Paulus were the 
chief leaders. See Eichhorn's Einleitung in das Alte Testa- 
ment, and Paulus's Commentar ilber das Neue Testament, and 
also his Leben Jesu, in which his views are more fully deve- 
loped. More recently Ewald, in his Qeschichte des Volkes 
Israel, has composed on the same principle a complete history 
of the Jewish people. 

Note (21 ), p 9. 
See Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 8, vol. i. p. 29, E. T. This same 
view was taken by De Wette, Krug, Gabler, Horst, and 
others. 

Note ( 22 )', p. 9. 
An anonymous writer in Bertholdt's Journal (vol. v. § 235) 
objects to the rationalistic method of Paulus, that it " evapo- 
rates all sacredness and divinity from the Scriptures ; " while 



246 NOTES. Lect. I. 

the mythical view, of which he is an advocate, " leaves the 
substance of the narrative unassailed," and " accepts the whole, 
not indeed as true history, but as a sacred legend." Strauss 
evidently approves of this reasoning. {Leben Jesu, § 8, vol. i. 
p. 32, E. T.) 

Note ( 23 ), p. 9, 

Strauss, Leben Jesu, Einleitung, § 4.' The weakness of this 
argument from authority is indeed allowed by Strauss himself, 
who admits that Origen " does not speak out freely " (p. 9), 
and that " his rule was to retain the literal together with the 
allegorical sense " (p. 6) — a rule which he only broke in 
" a few instances " (p. 12). He also allows that " after Origen, 
that kind of allegory only which left the historical sense 
unimpaired was retained in the Church; and where, sub- 
sequently, a giving up of the verbal meaning is spoken of, 
this refers merely to a trope or simile " (p. 9, note 14). It is 
doubtful whether Origen himself ever really gave up the 
literal and historical sense. That the heretics who sheltered 
themselves under Iris name (Origenists) did so is certain ; but 
they are accused of interpolating his writings. (See Mos- 
heim's Ecclesiastical History, book i. ch. 3, note * ad fin. vol. i. 
p. 288, E. T.) 

Since the above was in type, I have observed that Professor 
Powell, relying (as it would seem) on the bold assertions of 
the infidel Woolston *>, taxes not Origen only, but the Fathers 
generally, with an abandonment of the historical sense of 
Scripture. "The idea," he says, " of the mythic origin of the 
Gospel narrative had confessedly been applied by some writers, 
as Kosenniuller and Anton, to certain portions of the Gospels ; 
and, so limited, was acknowledged to possess the sanction of the 
Fathers." (Third Series of Essays, Essay iii. p. 338.) But 
the opposite view of Strauss is far more consonant with the 
facts. The whole subject was elaborately, and, I believe, 
honestly discussed in one of the celebrated Tracts for the 
Times (Tract 89, § 3 ; vol. vi. pp. 38-70) ; and the Fathers 
generally were completely exonerated from the false charge 
so commonly preferred against them. 

b Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour, published in 1727, 1728, 
and 1729. 



Lect. I.] NOTES. 247 

Note (24), p. 9. 

The more recent writers of the mythical School, as De 
Wette, Strauss, and Theodore Parker, assume that the mytho- 
logical character of great part of the Old Testament history 
is fully established. (See De Wette's Mnleitung in das Alte 
Test. § 136 ; Strauss, Leben Jesu, Einleitung, § 9, et seq. ; 
Th. Parker's Enlarged Translation of De .Wette, vol. ii. 
pp. 23-7, et passim.) German orthodox writers bear striking 
witness to the effect which the repeated attacks on the 
historical character of the Old Testament narrative have had 
upon the popular belief in their country. " If," says Keil, 
" the scientific theology of the Evangelical Church is anxious 
to strengthen its foundations again, it must force rationalism 
away from the Old Testament, where till the present time it 
has planted its foot so firmly, that many an acute theologian 
has doubted whether it is possible to rescue again the fides 
humana et divina of the historical writings of the ancient cove- 
nant." (Commentar iXber das Buck Josua, Vorwort, p. ii. : 
" Will daher die wissenschaftliche Theologie der evangelischen 
Kirche sich wieder fest grunden, so muss sie den Rationalis- 
mus aus dem Alten Testamente verdrangen, in welchem der- 
selbe bis jetzt so festen Fuss gefasst hat, dass nicht wenige 
tiichtige Theologen daran verzweifeln, die fides humana et 
divina der historischen Schriften des alten Bundes noch retten 
zu konnen.") And he complains that the Eationalistic " mode 
of treating the Old Testament History has been very dis- 
advantageous to the believing theological science, inasmuch 
as it can now find no objective ground or stand-point free from 
uncertainty ; " (" dass sie keinen objectiv sichern Grund und 
Standpunkt gewinnen kann." Ibid. 1. a). 

Note ( 25 ), p. 10. 

Strauss evidently feels this difficulty (Leben Jesu, Einlei- 
tung, § 13 ; vol. i. p. 64, E. T.). He endeavours to meet it 
by suggesting that " the sun does not shine on all parts of the 
earth at once. There was enlightenment in Italy and Greece 
about the time of the establishment of Christianity, but none 
in the remote Judaea, where the real nature of history had 
never even been rightly apprehended." In this there is no 



248 NOTES. [Lect. I, 

doubt same truth; but Strauss forgets that, though Judaea 
was the scene of the Gospel story, the Evangelical writings 
were composed chiefly in Greece and Italy ; and he omits to 
notice, that, being written in Greek — the literary language of 
the time — they addressed themselves to the enlightened circles 
of Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and Eome itself, far more than 
to the rude provincials of Palestine. The miracles too, by 
which Christianity was spread, were not alone those which 
occured in Judaea ; many had been wrought in Koine and in 
the various cities of Greece ; where they challenged the 
attention of the most civilised and enlightened classes. In 
Judaea itself, if the Jews generally were not " enlightened," 
in the modern sense of the word, the Eoman Governors, and 
their courts, were. And among the Jews, it must be remem- 
bered, the sect which had most power was that of the Saddu- 
cees — sceptics and materialists. 

Note ( 26 ), p. 10. 

The subjoined passage from Strauss seems to shew some- 
thing of this feeling : " The results of the enquiry which we 
have now brought to a close, have apparently annihilated the 
greatest and most valuable part of that which the Christian 
has been wont to believe concerning his Saviour Jesus, have 
uprooted all the animated motives which he has gathered 
from his faith, and withered all his consolations. The bound- 
less store of truth and life which for eighteen centuries has 
been the aliment of humanity, seems irretrievably dissipated ; 
the most sublime levelled with the dust, God divested of his 
grace, man of his dignity, and the tie between Heaven and 
Earth broken. Piety turns away with horror from so fearful 
an act of desecration, and, strong in the impregnable self- 
evidence of its faith, pronounces that, let an audacious cri- 
ticism attempt what it will, all which the Scriptures declare 
and the Church believes of Christ, will still subsist as eternal 
truth, nor needs one iota of it to be renounced." (Leben Jesu, 
§ 144, vol. iii. p. 396, E. T.) 

Note ( 27 ), p. 10. * 
See Bauer's Hebrdische Mythologie des Alien und Neuen Testa- 
ments, Erster Theil, Einleitung, § 3, with Gabler's criticism of 



Lect. L] NOTES. 249 

it in his Journal fur auserlesene theolog. Liter atur, ii. 1, § 58. 
Compare Strauss, Leben Jesu, §§ 33-43. 

Note ( 28 ), p. 10. 

Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, § 422 ; Thiele, 
Zur Biographie Jesu, § 23. 

Note ( 29 ), p. 10. 

See the account which Strauss gives of the "Development 
of the Mythical point of view," in his Leben Jesu, §§ 9-11. 
" The mythus," he observes, " when once admitted iuto the 
New Testament, was long detained at the threshold, namely, 
the history of the infancy of Jesus, every farther advance 
being contested. Ammon, the anonymous E. F. in Henke's 
Magazine, and others, maintained a marked distinction be- 
tween the historical worth of the narratives of the public life 

and those of the infancy of Jesus Soon, however, some 

of the theologians who had conceded the commencement 
of the history to the province of mythus, perceived that the 
conclusion, the history of the ascension, must likewise be 
regarded as mythical. Thus the two extremities were cut off 
by the pruning-knife of criticism." (§ 11, pp. 44-5.) Finally 
the essential body of the history was assailed, and the Gospels 
— especially the first three — were " found to contain a con- 
tinually increasing number of mythi and mythical embellish- 
ments." (§ 9, p. 36.) 

Note (30), p. 10. 
Leben Jesu, § 151 ; vol. hi. p. 437, E. T. 



Ibid. pp. 437-8. 



Note ( 31 ), p. 11. 



Note (32), p. 12. 
Eth. Nic. vi. 7, § 4 ; "Kroirov yap et tl<z rrjv 7ro\iTifcr]v r) 
tt]v (j)povr]o-LV o-irovSaLordrrjv ol€tcu elvai, el /jut] rb dptarov rwv 
iv too k6<t/jlg) avOpodiros iariv. 

Note (33), p. 12. 
See above, note 13. 



250 NOTES. [Lect. I. 

Note (34), p. 13. 
Vortrdge uber alte GeschicJite, vol. i. pp. 158-9. "Dass das 
Buch Esther nieht als ein Mstorisches zu betrachten sei, davon 
bin ich iiberzeugt, und ich stehe nicht im Minclesten an dies 
biermit offentlich auszusprechen. Viele sind derselben Mei- 
nung. Schon die Kirchenvater baben sicb daran geplagt, und 
der beilige Hieronymus, wie er klar andeutet, in der grossten 
Yerlegenbeit befunden, wenn er es als historisch betracbten 
wollte. Gegenwartig wird Niemand die G-eschichte im Bucbe 
Judith fiir bistorisch ansehen, und weder Origenes nocb Hie- 
ronymus haben dies gethan ; eben so verhdlt es sich mit dem 
Buehe Esther ; es ist ein Gfediclit uber diese Verhaltnisse. 

Note (35), p. 13. 
On the weight of the external testimonies to the authenticity 
of the Book of Esther, see Lecture V. note 69. 

Note (36), p. 13. 
There is reason to suspect that Niebuhr would have sur- 
rendered the Book of Daniel, as well as the Book of Esther, 
to the assailants of Scripture, since he nowhere refers to it as 
an historical document in his Lectures. Such reference would 
have been natural in several places. 

Note (37), p. 14. 
See M. Bunsen's Philosophy of Universal History, vol. i. 
pp. 190-1, E. T. 

Note ( 38 ), p. 15. 
See the same author's Egypt, vol. i. p. 182, E. T. 



Ibid. p. 173. 
Ibid. p. 174. 
Ibid. p. 173. 
Ibid. p. 181. 



Note ( 39 ), p. 15. 
Note ( 40 ), p. 15. 
Note ( 41 ), p. 15. 
Note ( 42 ), p. 15. 



Lect. I.] NOTES. 251 

Note (43), p. 15. 



Ibid. p. 180. 
Ibid, p 



Note (44), p. 16. 
179 ; and compare p. 170. 



Note (45), p. 16. 

German scepticism commenced with the school called the 
Naturalists, who undertook to resolve all the Scripture mi- 
racles into natural occurrences. The mythical School, which 
soon followed, very effectually demolished the natural theory, 
and clearly demonstrated its " unnaturalness." (See Strauss, 
Leben Jesu, Einleitung, § 9 and § 12.) The mythical writers 
themselves oppose one another. Strauss frequently condemns 
the explanations of G-abler and Weisse ; and Theodore Parker 
often argues against De Wette. That the Scripture History 
is a collection of myths, all of them are agreed. When and 
how the myths grew up, at what time they took a written 
form, when they came into their present shape, what amount 
of fact they have as their basis ; on these and all similar points, 
it is difficult to find two of them who hold the same opinion. 
(See below, Lecture II. note 37.) 

Note (46), p. 17. 
" Historical evidence," says Sir G-. C. Lewis, " like judicial 
evidence, is founded on the testimony of credible witnesses. 
Unless these witnesses had personal and immediate perception 
of the facts which they report, unless they saw and heard what 
they undertake to relate as having happened, their evidence 
is not entitled to credit. As all original witnesses must be 
contemporary with the events which they attest, it is a 
necessary condition for the credibility of a witness that he be 
a contemporary ; though a contemporary is not necessarily a 
credible witness. Unless therefore a historical account can 
be traced by probable proof to the testimony of contempo- 
raries, the first condition of historical credibility fails." {Cre- 
dibility of Early Roman History, Introduction, vol. i. p. 16.) 
Allowing for a little rhetorical overstating of the case, this is 
a just estimate of the primary value of the testimony borne 
by contemporaries and eye-witnesses. 



252 NOTES. [Lect. I. 

Note (47), p. 18. 

It is evident that an historian can rarely have witnessed 
one half the events which he puts on record. Even writers of 
commentaries, like Caesar and Xenophon, record many facts 
which they had not seen, and which they knew only by 
information from others. Ordinary historians, who have not 
had the advantage of playing the chief part in the events 
which they relate, are still more indebted to enquiry. Hence 
History seems to have received its name (laropia). When the 
enquiry appears to have been carefully conducted, and the 
judgment of the writer seems sound, we give very nearly as 
full credence to his statements founded upon enquiry as to 
those of an eye-witness. We trust Thucydicles almost as 
implicitly as Xenophon, and Tacitus almost as entirely as 
Caesar. Sir C C. Lewis allows that " accounts . . . derived, 
directly or indirectly, from the reports of original witnesses . . . 
may be considered as presumptively entitled to credit." (Cre- 
dibility, &c, ch. ii. § 1 ; vol. i. p. 19. Compare p. 25, and 
pp. 81-2 ; and see also his Methods of Observation and Rea- 
soning in Politics, ch. vii. § 2 ; vol. i. pp. 181-5.) 
Note ( 48 ), p. 18. 

The tendency of the modern Historical Criticism has been 
to diminish greatly the value formerly attached to this sort of 
evidence. Mr. Grote in some places seems to deny it all 
weight. (History of Greece, vol. i. pp. 572-577.) Practically, 
however, as Col. Mure has shewn, (Remarks on Two Appen- 
dices, &c, pp. 3-6,) he admits it as sufficiently establishing a 
number of very important facts. Sir Gr. C. Lewis regards oral 
tradition as a tolerably safe guide for the general outline of a 
nation's history " for a period reaching back nearly 150 years." 
(Credibility, &c, ch. iv. § 2 : vol. i. p. 100). Special circum- 
stances might, he thinks, give to an event a still longer hold 
on the popular memory. Among such special circumstances 
he notices " commemorative festivals, and other periodical 
observances," as in certain cases serving to perpetuate a true 
tradition of a national event (ibid. p. 101). 

Note ( 49 ), p. 18. 
The modern historical critics have not laid much stress on 
this head of evidence in their discussions of the abstract prin- 



** 



Lect. I.] NOTES. 253 

ciples of their science ; but practically they often shew their 
sense of its importance. Thus Niebuhr urges against the 
theory of the Etruscans being colonists from Lydia, the fact 
that it had no Lydian tradition to rest upon. {History of 
Rome, vol. i. p. 109, E. T.) Mr. Kenrick and others regard it 
as decisive of the question, whether the Phoenicians migrated 
from the Persian Gulf, that there was a double tradition in 
its favour (Kenrick's Phoenicia, ch. iii. p. 46 et seq.), both 
the Phoenicians themselves and the inhabitants of the islands 
lying in the Gulf agreeing as to the fact of the emigration. 
The ground of the high value of such evidence lies in the 
extreme improbability of an accidental harmony, and in the 
impossibility of collusion. ^fy 

Note ( 50 ), p. 19. 
Ezra, i. 1 ; v. 17 ; vi. 1-12. Esther, ii. 23 ; iii. 14 ; vi. 1. 

Note (51), p. 20. y 

Analogy, Part ii. ch. vii. p. 329. 

Note (52), p. 20. 
Let it be ten to one that a certain fact is true upon the 
testimony of one witness, and likewise ten to one that the 
same fact is true upon the evidence of another, then it is not 
twenty to one that the fact is true on the evidence of both, 
but 120 to one. And the evidence to the same point of a 
third independent witness of equal credibility with the others 
would raise the probability to 1330 to one. 

Note (53), p. 21. 
See Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 13 (vol. i. p. 64, E. T.) For a 
complete refutation of this view — " the shallowest and crudest 
of all the assumptions of unbelief c " — see the Bampton Lectures 
of my predecessor, Lecture II. pp. 184-197. 

Note ( 54 ), p. 22. 
See Bauer's Hebrdische Mythologie des Alten unci Neuen 
Testaments, quoted by Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 8 (vol. i. p. 25, 
E. T.) 

c Mansel's Bampton Lectures, Lecture VI. p. 193. 



254 NOTES. [Lect. I. 

Note ( 55 ), p. 23. 
Ecclesiastical Polity, book i. ch. 3, § 4. "Those things 
which Nature is said to do are by Divine art performed, 
using nature as an instrument ; nor is there any such art or 
knowledge divine in nature herself working, but only in the 
Guide of Nature's work . . . Unto us there is one only guide of 
all agents natural, and He both the Creator and Worker of all 
in all, alone to be blessed, adored, and honoured by all for 
ever." Compare Dean Trench, Notes on the Miracles of our 
Lord, ch. ii. pp. 9-10. 

Note ( 56 ), p. 24. 

Plato's Phsedo, § 46-7. 'AAA-' d/covaas fxev rrore i/c fiifiXtov 
rivos, &>? ecfyrj, 'Avatjayopov dvayiyvoxr/covros, teal Xeyovros a>s 
dpa vovs iarlv 6 Sia/cocrfjicov re teat rrdvrcdv curios, ravry Brj rrj 
air la, rjaOrjv re, teal e8o£e poi, icrX. Kat ovk av direho/xriv irdXKov 
rds eXrrlhas, dXkd rrdvv Girovhfj \a{3(bv rds /3l{3\ovs &><? rdyiara 
dibs r rjv dveylyvcocrKov, 1v <bs rdyiara elSeiwv ro j3ekriarov 
Kal ro yelpov. ''Airo Sr) Oavfjuaarris, co eralpe, e\irihos oy^o/uirjv 
(j>epo/ievos, iireiSr} irpoicbv fcal dvayiyvcocrtcwv opw dvBpa rS 
/nev vat ovSev ^pco/uuevov ovSe rivas air las eiraino^yuevov 
els ro Sia/coo-fJielv rd irpcuypbara, depas Se teal afflepas fcai vBara 
alricofjbevov fcal aXXa rroXkd koi droira. The " Vestiges of 
Creation" and other works of the same stamp, are the modern 
counterparts of these Anaxagorean treatises. 

Note ( 57 ), p. 25. 
On the latter subject see Mr. J. H. Newman's Essay pre- 
fixed to a portion of Fleury's Ecclesiastical History, and also 
published in a separate form (Oxford, Parker, 1843) ; and 
compare the views of Dodwell (Dissertat. in Irenceum, ii. 28 
et seqq.), Burton (Ecclesiastical History of the first Three 
Centuries, vol. ii. pp. 5, 230-3, &c), and Kaye (Tertullian, 
p. 104 ; Justin Martyr, p. 121). On the supernatural element 
in Heathenism, see Mr. Newman's Arians (ch. i. § 3, pp. 87-91); 
and compare Trench, Notes on the Miracles, ch. iii. pp. 21-3 ; 
Alford's Gf-reek Testament, vol. ii. p. 164 ; Hue's Voyage dans 
la Tar.tarie, vol. i. pp. 295-6 ; and Havernick, Handbuch der 
historisch-Jcritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament, § 23, 
p. 244, E. T. 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 255 



LECTURE II 



Note ( 1 ), p. 30. 

See Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and Know- 
ledge of Holy Scriptures, ch. ii. § i. ; vol. i. pp. 51-6, sixth 
edition ; Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, Lecture I. ; 
Havernick, Handbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in 
das Alte Testament, vol. i. ch. ii. § 108 ; Stuart's Defence of the 
Old Testament Canon, § 3, p. 42, &c. This fact is not denied 
by those who oppose the Mosaic authorship. (See De Wette's 
Einleitung in das Alte Testament, § 163, and § 164, pp. 203-5.) 

Note ( 2 ), p. 30. 

The history of the controversy concerning the authorship 
of the Iliad will illustrate what is stated in the text. It 
cannot but be allowed that arguments of very considerable 
weight have been adduced by Wolf and others in disproof 
of the Homeric authorship. Yet the opposite belief maintains 
its ground in spite of them, and is regarded by the latest critic 
as fully and finally established. (See Gladstone's Homer and 
the Homeric Age, vol. i. pp. 3, 4.) The reason is that the 
opposing arguments, though strong, are pronounced on the 
whole, not strong enough to overcome the force of a unanimous 
tradition. 

Note (3), p. 30. 

For instance, De Wette repeats the old objection of Spinoza, 
that the author of the Pentateuch cannot be Moses, since he 
uses the expression " beyond Jordan " as a dweller in Palestine 
would, whereas Moses never entered Palestine. {Einleitung, 
&c, § 147, a, 4.) But all tolerable Hebraists are aware that 
the term "I3ij?? or "D#D is ambiguous, and may mean on 
either side of a river. Buxtorf translates it, " cis, ultra, trans." 
{Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum, p. 527, ad voc. "13}?.) So 
Gesenius and others. Even De Wette admits in a note that 



256 NOTES. [Lect. li- 

the expression has the two senses ; but the objection maintains 
its place in his text notwithstanding. 

De Wette's translator and commentator, Mr. Theodore 
Parker, repeats the objection, and amplifies it. He remarks, 
that in the Pentateuch the expression "beyond Jordan" 
means " on the east side of that river," while " this side 
Jordan" means "to the w r est of that river." (vol. ii. p. 41.) 
Apparently he is not aware that in the original it is one and 
the same expression (12^D) which has been rendered in the 
two different w r ays. (See especially Numb, xxxii. 19 ; and 
compare, for the double force of the word, 1 Sam. xiv. 4.) 

Note (4), p. 31. 

Examples of interpolations, or insertions into the text by 
another hand, are, I think, the following : Gen. xxxvi. 31-9 ; 
Exod. xvi. 35-6, and perhaps Deut. hi. 14. (See Graves, 
Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 342, pp. 345-6, and 
p. 349.) The first of these cannot have been, and the others 
probably were not, written by Moses. They are supplementary 
notes of a similar character to the supplementary chapter of 
Deuteronomy (ch. xxxiv.), in which every commentator re- 
cognises an addition to the original document. (Graves, 
vol. i. pp. 349, 350 ; Havernick, Handbuch, &c, § 134, sub 
fin. vol. i. p. 549 ; Home's Introduction, &c, vol. i. p. 62, &c.) 

The other passages which have been regarded as inter- 
polations, such as Gen. xiii. 8, xxii. 14 ; Deut. ii. 10-12, 
20-23, iii. 9, 11, &c, may, I think, have all been written by 
Moses. Havernick (1. s. c.) maintains, that even the passages 
mentioned in the last paragraph are from the pen of the 
Lawgiver, and holds that the Pentateuch is altogether " free 
from interpolation " — the last chapter of Deuteronomy alone 
being from another hand, and constituting an Appendix to 
the Pentateuch, or even an Introduction to Joshua. He 
seems to think that if interpolation be once admitted, all is 
rendered uncertain. " From interpolation to revision," he 
says, "is so short a step, especially if we conceive of the latter 
according to the sense and spirit of the East, that we should 
find it impossible to oppose any barrier to the latter supposi- 
tion, if the former could be proved." But it is our business 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 257 

to be guided not by the exigencies of controversy, but by the 
demands of Reason and Truth. It would be strange if in a 
book as old as the Pentateuch there were not some interpo- 
lations. And all reasonable . men will readily see that a few 
interpolations, whether made by authority, or glosses which 
have crept in from the margin, do not in the slightest degree 
affect the genuineness of the work as a whole. (See Home's 
Introduction, vol. i. ch. 2, p. 62 ; Graves's Lectures, Appendix, 
§ 1, p. 346, and pp. 355-361 ; Rosenmuller's Prolegomena, 
p. 36 ; Eichhorn's Einleitung in das Alte Testament, § 434, 
&c. ; Jahn's Einleitung und Beitrage zur Vertheid. der Aecht- 
heit des Pentateuchs, p. 60 ; and Fritzsche's Prufung der 
Grunde, &c. p. 135.) 

Note ( 5 ), p. 31. 
De Wette, Einleitung, § 145; pp. 168, 16-9. 

Note (6), p. 31. 
Ibid. § 163, p. 204. " Gegen die Abfassung durch Mose 
zeugt . . . die gange Analogie der Sprach und Literatur- 
Geschichte der Hebraer. ... So ist es Unsinn anzuneh- 
men, das Ein Mann die episch-historische, rhetorische, und 
poetische Schreibart im ganzen Umfange so wie auch diese 
drei Gebiete der Hebraischen Litteratur ihrem Inhalte und 
Geiste nach im voraus geschaffen, unci alien folgenden Schrift- 
stellern nichts als den Nachtritt gelassen haben soil." 

Note (7), p. 31. 
Hartmann, Historisch-fcritische ForscJtungen uber d. Bildung, 
$c, des Pentateuchs, p. 545, et alibi. Norton, Genuineness of 
the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 444, second edition. The objection is 
as old as Spinoza. (See his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 
ch. viii. p. 154.) 

Note ( 8 ), p. 31. 
De Wette, Einleitung, § 144, p. 167. 

Note (9), p. 31. 
Hartmann, 1. s. c. So Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Poli- 
ticus, ch. viii. pp. 154-5. 

s 



258 



NOTES. 



[Lect. II. 



Note (10), p. 31. 
Leben Jesu, Einleitung § 13, vol. i. p. 60. E. T. The 
genuineness of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which 
contains so many references to miracles, d is specially acknow- 
ledged, § 140, vol. iii. p. 367, E. T. 

Note (11), p. 31. 
Strauss allows, though with evident reluctance, that the 
Acts are, or at least may be, the work of St. Luke (Leben 
Jesu, § 13, vol. i. p. 60, E. T.) He regards it as "not a little 
remarkable, that the author makes no distinct allusion to 
his connexion with the most distinguished of the Apostles.'-' 
It is certainly very remarkable how completely St. Luke 
keeps himself, and his own actions, in the background, while 
engaged in recording the history of events in which he himself 
took part. But this reticence is a feature of that humility 
which characterises the Sacred Writers generally. 

Note (12), p. 32. 
It was the existence of considerable remains of Greek 
literature, earlier in elate than the latter half of the sixth 
century, B.C., and an exact acquaintance with it, which enabled 
Bentley so thoroughly to establish the spuriousness of the 
alleged Epistles of Phalaris. In the Homeric controversy, 
on the other hand, the want of any contemporary literature 
has rendered the argument that a single man in such early 
times could not possibly have composed both the Iliad and 
the Odyssey, so weak and inconclusive that the opposite 
opinion still maintains its ground, and on the whole seems 
tending to become the established one. (See above, note 2.) 

Note ( 13 ), p. 32. 
The only remains of ancient literature which are even 
supposed to reach as high as the age of Moses, are certain 
Hieratic Paj3yri found in Egypt, belonging to the nineteenth 
or even to earlier dynasties. Two of these have been 
translated by the Vicomte de Kouge, e and several others by 



d See especially ch. xii. verses 9, 
10, and 28-30, ch. xiv. 2, 5, 6, 13, 
&c., and ch. xv. 3. 



e See the Revue Archeologique for 
May 1852, and the Revue Contem- 
poraine for 1856. 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 259 

the Eev. J. D. Heath/ But it is very doubtful whether 
these translations give much real insight into the originals. 
As Mr. Goodwin observes {Cambridge Essays, 1858, p. 229), 
" Egyptian philology is yet hi its infancy. Chanipollion got 
little further than the accidence of the language ; and since 
his time not much has been done in the investigation of the 
syntax. . . . With an incomplete knowledge of the syntax, 
and a slender vocabulary, translation becomes guesswork, 
and the misconception of a single word or phrase may 
completely confound the sense." Hence Mr. Goodwin and 
Mr. Heath often differ as to the entire subject and bearing of 
a document. (See Mr. Goodwin's Essay, pp. 249, 259, 261, &c.) 

Note ( 14 ), p. 32. 
The antiquity of the diction of the Pentateuch has been 
denied by some critics/ among others by Gesenius. (See 
his G-eschichte der Hebrdischen Sprache und Schrift, § 8.) 
But Jahn seems to have established the point beyond any 
real controversy. (See Jahn's contributions to Bengel's Archiv, 
vol. ii. p. 578 et seq. ; vol. iii. p. 168 et seq. Compare 
Fritzsche, Prufung der Grilnde, &c, .p. 104, et seq. ; and see 
also Marsh's Authenticity of the' Five Books of Moses, p. 6, et 
seq. ; and Stuart's History and Defence of the Old Testament 
Canon, pp. 12-13.) At least De Wette, writing after both 
Jahn and Gesenius, is constrained to admit that archaisms 
exist in considerable number, and has to account for them 
by supposing that they were adopted from the ancient docu- 
ments of which the Compiler, who lived later than Solomon, 
made use. (Einleitung, § 157. See also § 163, where he 
allows that the linguistic as distinct from the literary argu- 
ment, against the Mosaic authorship, is weak.) 

Note ( 15 ), p. 32. 
This is abundantly shown by Havernick (Handbuch, &c, 
§ 136 ; pp. 554-564.) 

Note ( 16 ) p. 32. 
See Lecture III. pages 83 and 84. 



f The Exodus Papyri, London, 
1855. 

« Vater, Abhandlung uber Moses, 



&c. § 393 ; Norton, Authenticity 
of the Gospels, vol. ii. pp. 441, 442. 

s 2 



260 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

Note ( 17 ), p. 32. 

Mr. Norton is the writer who in recent times has urged 
this point with the greatest distinctness, and has given it 
the most prominent position. In his section, headed " Some 
general considerations respecting the Authorship of the Pen- 
tateuch," he begins his argument against the genuineness 
with this objection. Moses, he says, lived probably in the 
fifteenth century before Christ ; certainly not much later. 
" There is no satisfactory evidence that alphabetical writing 
was known at this time. If known to others, it is improbable 
that it was known to the Hebreivs. They could not, during 
their residence in Egypt, have learnt alphabetical writing from 
the Egyptians ; for the mode of representing ideas to the 
eye, which the Egyptians employed till a period long sub- 
sequent, was widely (?) different from the alphabetical writing 
of the Hebrews. If they were acquainted with the art, 
they must have brought it with them into the country. But 
we can hardly suppose that it was invented, or acquired 
except by tradition, in the family of Isaac, or in that of Jacob 
before his residence hi Egypt, engaged as they both were 
in agriculture and the care of cattle. We must then go back 
to Abraham at least for what traditionary knowledge of it 
his descendants in Egypt may be supposed to have possessed. 
But it would be idle to argue against the supposition that alpha- 
betical writing ivas known in the time of Abraham "^ 

That writing was unknown to the Hebrews till the time 
of the Judges, was, at one period of their lives, maintained 
by Gesenius and De Wette. (See Gesenius, G-eschichte der 
Hebrdischen Sprache und Schrift, § 140, et seq., and De 
Wette's Archdologie, § 277.) Both however saw reason to 
change their opinion, and admitted subsequently that it 
must have dated at least from Moses. See Gesenius's Hebrew 
Grammar, Excursus I. p. 290 (English Translation, 13th 
edition), and De Wette's Einleitung, § 12, p. 13. The bidk 
of modern German critics, whether rationalist or orthodox, 
acquiesce in this latter opinion. See Ewald, Geschichte Volkes 
Israel, pp. 64-69, Von Lengerke, Kenaan, p. xxxv., Havernick, 
Einleitung in das Alte Testament, § 44, &c. ; and compare the 

h Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. ii. Appendix, NoteD. § 3 ; pp. 439-441. 



Lect II.] NOTES. 261 

American writer, Stuart, Old Testament Canon, § 3, pp. 
40, 41. 

Note ( 18 ), p. 33. 

See the statements of Sir Gardner Wilkinson, in the author's 
Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 311, and pp. 343-4. The date assigned 
to the fourth dynasty rests upon the same authority. 

Note (19), p. 33. 
Sir Henry Kawlinson regards the earliest inscribed bricks 
in the Babylonian series as dating from about b. c. 2200. 
(See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 435 and 440.) 

Note ( 20 ), p. 33. 

See Wilkinson's statements on this subject, in the author's 
Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 306, 321, &c. He regards the hieratic 
character as having come into use " at least as early as the 
9th dynasty (p. 306), which he places about b. c. 2240. 
A considerable number of hieratic papyri belonging to the 
19th dynasty, and one or two of a still earlier date, are now 
in the British Museum. (See Cambridge Essays for 1858, 
pp. 229, 230.) 

Some writers urge, that the Jews could not have learnt 
alphabetic writing from the Egyptians, since "the mode of 
representing ideas to the eye, which the Egyptians employed 
till a period long subsequent, was widely different from the 
alphabetical writing of the Hebrews." (Norton, 1. s. c. Com- 
pare Havernick, Einleitung, § 42-43.) But the difference was 
really not very great. It is a mistake to suppose that the 
Egyptian writing was, except to a small extent, symbolical. 
Both in the hieroglyphic and the hieratic, as a general rule, 
the words are spelt phonetically first, and are then followed by 
a symbol or symbols. (See Mr. Goodwin's Essay, p. 227, and 
compare Wilkinson, Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 317.) 

Note (21), p. 33. 
Ur, or Hur (")^), the modern Mugheir, has furnished 
some of the most ancient of the Babylonian inscriptions. (See 
the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 435 ; and compare Loftus's 
Chaldaia and Susiana, ch. xii. p. 130.) It seems to have been 
the primeval capital of Chaldsea. The inscriptions, which are 



262 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

either on bricks or on clay cylinders, and which are somewhat 
rudely executed, have been assigned to about the 22nd cen- 
tury before Christ (see the Herodotus, vol. i. p. 440), which 
is at least three centuries before Abraham. 

Attempts have sometimes been made to determine the 
questions, whence exactly and when exactly the Hebrews 
obtained their alphabetic system. (See Havernick's Mn- 
leitung, § 44.) It is considerably different both from that of 
Egypt and that of Babylon, while it is almost identical with 
that of Phoenicia ; whence it is inferred, that the Hebrews 
learnt it from the Phoenicians. Of this, however, there is no 
evidence, since the Phoenicians may equally as well have 
learnt of them. (See the statement of Eupolemus, quoted in 
note 25.) The probability seems to be, that the family of 
Abraham brought an alphabetic system from Ur, which may 
have been modified in Canaan and again in Egypt h , and 
which may not have assumed a settled shape until the 
writings of Moses fixed it for after ages. The system which 
they brought may have been either originally common to 
them with the Aramaic, Phoenician, and other cognate races ; 
or it may have gradually spread from them to those people. 

Note (22), p. 33. 

Hecatseus of Abdera lived in the fourth century before 
Christ. He was a friend of Alexander the Great, and wrote 
a work upon the history and religious antiquities of the Jews. 
The following is his testimony to Moses : — 

Kara rrjv Aljvtttov to nraXaiov \oijbLLfcf)<; irepLo-rdaeco^ yevo- 
\x,kvr)<^, aveirefiirov oi ttoWol ttjv avriav twv fca/ccov et? to Sac/jbo- 
vlov' ttoWwv yap koX TravTohairoiv k,oltoucovvtwv %evcov teal 8t- 
yjXXay /nevoid eOeat j^pedfjuevayv irepl to iepov /cat Ta? Overlap /caTa- 
XekvcrOcLL crvveflaLve Trap avTols tcov Oecov Ti[ia<;. "Qirep oi tt}? 
yozpas; iyyevels vireXafiov, eav /ut) tovs aWotyvkovs [xeTaaTrjawv- 
Tai, tepienv ov/c eaeaOai twv /caKoov. Eu#i)? ovv ^evrfKaTov/juevoyv 
Toyv aWoeOvwv, oi fxev eiri^avkaTaToi /cat SpaaTiKooTaToi av- 
o~Tpa(f)evTe<; i^6ppt(pr)aav, ak Tives (pao-tv, ek ttjv f EAA.aSa ... 6 
Be 7roXu? Xea>? i^eTrecrev et? ttjv vvv KaXeofJbevrjv 'lovBaiav, ov 

h It seems scarcely possible that cidental. A fainter similarity may 
the resemblance between the Hebrew be traced in some other letters. 
shin and the Egyptian sh can be ac- 



Lbct. II.] NOTES. ' 263 

WOppCD fieV /C6l/JL6V7]V T?}? AlyVTTTOV, 7T<X^T6Xw? Be €prjflOV OIKTCLV 

/car e/cecvovs tovs %povov<;. 'Hyelro Be tt}? diroiiciat; 6 irpoaayo- 
pevopuevos Mcoctt)?, (£>pov7]G€L re /cal dvBpela 7ro\ij Btacpepcov. 
Ovto? Be /caraXafibpievos rr)v ^copav, aWas re 7roA,et? e/criae /cal 
rr)v vvv ovcrav eTTi^avecrrdrrjv, ovopia^opuevrjv ^epocroXvpua. f IBpv- 
craro Be /cal to pudXicrra Trap avrols ripboopbevov lepbv, /cal rd? ri- 
pua? /cal dyicrrela? rod Oeiov /careBectje, /cal rd /card rr)v itoXi- 
Telav ivo/jLo6eT7)(re teal Boera^e. After giving an account of the 
chief points of the law, Hecatseus adds: Ylpoayeyparrrai 
Be /cal rot? vofjLOis errl reXevri)?, on Mgkt)}? d/covcra? rod ©eoO 
rdBe \eyet rot? 'lov Baloi?. (See the Fragments of Hecatseus 
in Mons. C. Midler's Fragmenta Historieorum Qrcecorum, 
vol. ii. p. 392, Fr. 13.) 

Note ( 23 ), p. 33. 
Manetho, the Egyptian, was also contemporary with Alex- 
ander, and wrote his Egyptian History under the first Ptolemy. 
His words, as reported by Josephus, are — Aeyerat 8' on rr)v 
iroXvrelav ical rov? vopuov? avrol? fcara(3a\6pbevo$ 
lepevs, rb yevo? r H\Lov7ro\lrr)<z, ovopua ^Ocrapo-l^, dirb rod ev 
e HXto7roXet 6eov 'Oaipeco?, ft)? puereftr) eh rodro rb yevos, puere- 
re07] rovvopua ical irpoo-rjyopevOr) Mcouctt}?. (Fragmenta Hist. 
Grcec. vol. ii. p. 580 ; Fr. 54.) 

Note (24), p. 33. 
Lysimachus of Alexandria, a writer (probably) of the 
Augustan age, abused Moses and his laws. See Josephus 
(contr. Apion. ii. 14) ; — -Kvalpba^o? /cal nve? dXKoi, rd puev 
vit dyvolas, rb ifkelarov Be Kara Bvcrpbivetav, nrepl re rod vopuo- 
Oerrjcravros r)pulv M<wucreft)? /cal nrepl r&v vo/jlcov irenroirivrai Xo- 
yovs ovre Bacaiovs ovre dXrjdei?, rbv puev ft)? yorjra /cal dnrarewva 
BiafidXkovres, rov$ vbpuovs Be ica/clas rjpulv /cal ovBeputas apery)? 
<f>dcr/covres elvai BiBaa/caXov?. 

Note ( 25 ), p. 33. 
Eupolemus is by some thought to have been a Jew ; but 
the liberties which he takes with Scripture seem to mark 
him for a heathen. Josephus evidently considers him such, 
since he couples him with Demetrius Phalereus, and speaks 
of him as unable to follow exactly the sense of the Jewish 
Scriptures. (Contr. Apion. i. 23.) He lived in the latter half 
of the second century before Christ, and wrote a work in 



264 • NOTES. [Lect. 11. 

Greek on the history of the Jews, which was largely quoted 
by Alexander Polyhistor, the contemporary of Sylla. (See 
Eusebius, Prceparatio Evangelica, vol. ii. pp. 370-3, 394, 423- 
433, &c.) Polyhistor thus recorded his testimony concerning 
Moses : — 

^LviroXefJLOs 8e (prjcrt tov Mcoarjv irpoirov (ro(j)bv yevea6ai > koX 
rypdfjLjjLciTra irapahovvat rocs 'lovBalots irpcorov, irapa he 
lovhalcov QoivLfcas irapaXafBeZv, r/ E\A/)7i/a? Se irapa rwv ^olvikwv, 
vofjuovs re irpayrov yputyaiM.oya-rjv^IovSalois. (Fragmenta 
Hist Grcec, vol. ii. p. 220, Fr. 13.) 

Note ( 26 ), p. 33. 
Histor. v. 4 ; " Moyses, quo sibi hi posterum gentem fir- 
maret, novos ritus contrariosque cseteris mortalibus indidit." 

Note ( 27 ), p. 34. 
" Quidam sortiti metuentem Sabbata patrem, 
Nil prseter nubes et coeli numen adorant ; 
Nee distare putant humana carne suillam, 
Qua pater abstinuit ; mox et prseputia ponunt ; 
Komanas autem soliti contemnere leges, 
Judaicum ediscunt, et servant, et metuunt jus, 
Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses." 

Satir. xiv. 96-102. 

Note ( 28 ), p. 34. 

Longinus does not mention Moses by name, but it cannot 
be doubted that he intends him in the famous passage, where 
he speaks of " the Jewish legislator " as a person historically 
known, and as the writer of Genesis. Tavry koi 6 rchv 
"lovSatcov Oea-fJuoOeTr}^, ov% 6 rv^cbv avrjp, iireoBrj tt]v Twv.Oecov 
Svva/xcv Kara rrjv a^iav iyvcopocre, xa^ecprjvev, ev6v<$ iv rfj 
elaftoXf) <y petty as roiv vo/jLcdv, " JLlirev 6 0eo9," tfyqaV ti ; 
" TevecrOcc (/>eo?, koi iyevero' yeveaOco yr\, teal iyevero." De 
Sublimitate, § 9. 

Note ( 29 ), p. 34. 

Hecata3us, Eupolemus, Juvenal, and Longinus. See above, 
notes 22, 25, 27, and 28. Nicolas of Damascus may be added 
as a witness to the composition of the Pentateuch by Moses. 
Speaking of a certain man as saved in the Ark at the time of 
the Great Deluge, he says — yivotro S' av ovtos, ovitva koi 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 265 

Meoa% dveypa-yjrev, 6 'louSalcov vofioOerir)^. (See Josephus 
Antiq. Jud. i. 3, § 6.) 

Note ( 30 ), p. 34. 
According to some writers, Hellanicus, the contemporary 
of Herodotus, mentioned Moses. (Justin Martyr, Cohortatio 
ad Grentes, § 8, p. 13, D. Ol tci 'AOrjvaicov lo-Topovvres, 
r JL\\dvifc6<; re /cal ^tko^opo^, ol tcl? 'At0 ISas, Kdarcop re 
/cal SaXXbs, /cal ' Ake^avSpos 6 Ho\vto-Toop, . . . . &>? acpoSpa 
dpyaiov /cal iraXauov tcov 'lovBatcov ap^ovTos Wloovo-eojs fA&fivrjv- 
tcli. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Contra Julianum, i. p. 15, D. 
"Otl Be tols ( FiXkrjvoov IcrTopioypdfyois yvcopo{M*)TaTos rjv 6 Ma- 
en}?, e£ avrodv oov yeypd^aaiv e^ecrTiv IBelv. UoXe/xcov re yap 

iv rfj 7Tp(OT7] TOOV 'JLWwVL/CCOV laTOplQiV Sl€jULV7]fl6veV<T€V avTov, 

Kal JlroXefialo^ 6 NlevSijcnos, /cal pA]v /cal *HL~XXdvi/co<; ical <$>i\6- 
X°p 0< >> Kdarcop re ical erepoi 7rpo? tovtois.) As he wrote a 
work entitled Tiepl "JZOvcov, or Bap/3api/ca ^o/jui/jba, there is 
no improbability in this statement. It is less easy to see 
what could have led Philochorus (b. c. 300) to speak of 
him, but we are scarcely entitled on this ground to pronounce 
(as Mons. C. Muller does, Fr. Mist. Gr. vol. i. p. 385), that 
Justin misunderstood his author. Polemon of Ilium (about 
B. c. 200) seems to have spoken of Moses leading the Isra- 
elites out of Egypt. (Africanus ap. Euseb. Prcep. Ev. x. 10 ; 
vol. ii. p. 512 ; Kal ( EW?|W Be rove? laTopovcn Kara tov<$ 
avrovs %povov<> yevecrOai, M.cocrea' TloXe/mcov puev ev rfj Trpcory 
rcov r JL\Xr)vifc6ov laroptoiv Xeycov, eirl "AttlBos tov ^opcoveoos 
fjiolpa tov Alyv7TTLcov dTpaTov e^eireaev AlyvirTov, ol iv ttj 
JIaXatcrTivr) /caXovfievrj %vpia ov iroppoo 'Apafiias w/cna-av, avTol 
BrjXovoTL ol /uueTa Mcoaeoo^. Comp. Cyril. Alex. 1. s. c. ; Justin 
Martyr, Cohort, ad Grentes, p. 11 ; Syncellus, vol. i. p. 116.) 
Apollonius Molo, Cicero's instructor in rhetoric (about b. c. 80), 
called Moses a juggler and an impostor, and gave a very in- 
correct account of his legislation. (Josephus, Contra Apionem, 
ii. 14. Yide supra, note 24.) Trogus Pompeius (ab. b. c. 20) 
spoke of him at some length, but did not give his readers very 
correct information, if we may judge by the epitome of Justin. 
Justin says — " Filius ejus (so. Joseph) Moses fuit, quern prseter 
paternse scientise heereditatem etiam formae pulchritudo com- 
mendabat. Sed vEgyptii, cum scabiem et vitiliginem pater- 



26d NOTES. [Lect. II. 

entur, responso moniti, eum cum aegris, ne pestis ad plures 
serperet, terminis iEgypti pellunt. Dux igitur exulum factus, 
sacra iEgyptioruin furto abstulit : quse repetentes armis 
Egyptii doniuni redire tempestatibus compulsi sunt. Itaque 
Moses, Damascena antiqua patria repetita, montem Synse oc- 
cupat ; quo septern clierum jejunio per deserta Arabise cum 
populo suo fatigatus, cum tandem venisset, septimum diem 
more gentis ' sabbata ' appellatum in omne sevum jejunio 

sacravit, quoniam ilia dies famem illis erroremque finierat 

Post Mosen etiam filius ejus Aruas, Sacerdos sacris iEgyptiis, 
mox rex creatur." {Hist, xxxvi. 2.) The Egyptian historians 
Apion (b. c. 30), Chseremon (a. d. 50), and Ptolemy of blendes 
— the last an author of uncertain date, probably of the first 
century after Christ — noticed the fact of his leading the Jews 
out of Egypt. (See Tatian, Oratio adversus Grcecos, § 37, 
p. 273 ; AlyvTTTiayv & elcriv a/cpc/Sels yjpoviov avaypafyai Kcu 
twv /car avrovs ypa/jb/jbdrcov epfJLwvevs IXroAe^ato?, ov% 6 
(BacrCkevs, lepevs Be Mez^ro?, outo? t<z? tcov fiao-iXecov irpa^eis 
itcTtOefjLevos, Kara "Afjucoaiv AlyvirTov ftacnXea yeyovevcu 'Iov- 
cWot? (fiacre ttjv i% AlyvTTTOv iropeiav ets direp rjOekov yjspia, 
Mft)c7€co? riyovfjuevov. Compare Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. p. 379 ; 
Cyril. Alex. 1. s. c; Euseb. Prcep. Ev. x. 11 ; vol. ii. p. 519, &c. 
And for the testimonies of Chseremon and Apion, which will be 
adduced in note 81, see Joseph, c. Apion. i. 32, and ii. 2.) It is 
also probable that Moses was mentioned by Castor the chro- 
nologer (about b. c. 160), and by Thallus, the freedman of 
Tiberius. (See the passages from Justin Martyr and Cyril 
quoted at the beginning of this note.) Numenius, the Pythago- 
rean philosopher, who lived in the age of the Antonines, 
called Moses "a man very powerful with God through 
prayer," and mentioned his contest with the Egyptian magi- 
cians, Jannes and Jambres. (See Euseb. Prcep. Ev. ix. 8 ; 
vol. ii. p. 358 ; ra S' etjrjs 'Iavvr)<; kclI 'Ia/LL/3pr}<; AlyvirrcoL 
lepoypa/^fiarel^, avBpes ov&evbs tjttovs yuayevaai tcpiOevTes elvcu, 
ettI 'IovBcllcdv i^ekavvofjuevcov ef AlyviTTOv. M.ovaal(p yovv 
ray *\ovBaiwv i^rjyrjaafMevcp, dvBpl yevo\xevcd Seat ev^acrQai 
SvvaTcordrq), ol 7rapaarrjvat d^iwOevres vtto tov ttXtjOovs tov 

TGOV AlyV7TTLC0V OVTOL r)<TCLV, TCOV T6 (TV/JL<f)OpWV a? O MofCTaiO? 

eirrjye rfj Alyvirrw, t<x? veavucwTaras avrcov eirikveaQat axf)- 
dvo-av BvvcltoL Compare Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxx. 1, § 2.) 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 267 

Nicolas of Damascus also mentioned Moses, and called him 
"the Jewish, law-giver." (See the passage quoted in note 29.) 

Note (31), p. 34. 

The only classical writer, so far as I am aware, who 

expresses any doubt with respect to the Mosaic origin of the 

Jewish law is Strabo, a very untrustworthy authority in the 

field of ancient history. Strabo ascribes the establishment of 

Monotheism and of the moral law to Moses, but believes the 

ceremonial law to have been added by his successor. (Geo- 

graphica, xvi. 2, § 35-37. Mcoo-?}? <ydp rt? twv Al<yv7TTicov 

lepecov . . . dirfjpev etcelo~e evOevhe, hva^epdva^ ra KaOecrrcora, 

teal avve^rjpav avrco iroXkol TijJLOiVTes to Oelov' €<fyq yap 

etcelvos real i$l$a<Tfcev, <w? ovtc opdax; (fipovoiev ol Alyvirrtoo 

07)pLOLS elrcdtyvTes teal /Socr/c^fjuaac to Oelov, ovK ol Alftve?' ovtc 

ev Se ovS* ol r/ FtX\,r)ve<;, dvOpcQwo/jLOpcpovs TvirovvTes' ecr) yap ev 

tovto fjuovov 6 ehs to TrepLeyov rj/jids diravTas teal <yrjv teal OdXaT- 

Tav, b rcaXov/juev ovpavbv teal koo~\iov teal tt\v twv ovtcov <pvo-iv 

.... teal TrpooSorcdv Belv dyadov irapa tov 6eov /cat Sa>pov del 

tl teal G7]\xelov rou? crcocppovcos ^wvTas teal jxeTa BaeaioavvT]^, tovs 

8' aWovs fjLTj TrpooSotcdv .... Qvtos fjuev ovv evhotafjurjeras tov- 

to£9 o~vveaTrjcraTO dp^v ov ttjv Tvyovaav, dirdvTcov irpocryjpi()- 

advTcov paBlcos tcov tcvrcXa) Sod ttjv 6/jbtklav teal Ta irpOTeivbjxeva. 

Ol Se SiaSe^dfjuevoc %p6vov<z [xev Tivas ev toZ$ avTol? See- 

jjuevov 8ifcaL07rpayovvT€s, real OeoaefteZs oi)$ d\r}6co$ 6We?' eireiT 

icpoo-Tafjuevcov eirl ttjv lepocrvvrjv to /xev 7rp6)Tov 8eio~ thai /jlovcov, 

eireiTa Tvpavvirccbv dvOpwircov, etc fiev tt}? SeLo-tSat/uLovias al tS)v 

/3 pcofJuaTcov diroo-^kcTei^, Sivirep teal vvv avToZs iarlv Wos 

direyeo-Qai, /cal a I irepiTO juual feat a I ercTOfJual real el Tiva 

ToiavTa ivofjbicrOr), etc he. tcov TVpavvirctov Ta \qo~Trjpia.) It 

is to be remarked that Strabo quotes no authority, whence 

it may be suspected that his account is based rather on his 

own views of probability, and of the natural sequence of 

events in such cases, than on the statements of any earlier 

writers. (See his words at the opening of the next section.) 

Note ( 32 ), p. 45. 

See Exod. xvii. 14; xxiv. 4, 7; Numb, xxxiii. 2; Deut. 
xvii. 1 8, et seq. ; xxviii. 58, et seq. ; xxix. 20, 27 ; and xxxi. 
9, 24, et seq. 



268 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

Note ( 33 ) ,p. 35. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 6 ; vol. i. p. 20, E. T. 

Note (34), p. 35. 
See particularly Deuteronomy xxviii. 58, and xxix. 20, 
27. Havernick's comment on these and other kindred passages 
deserves the attention of the student. (See his Handbueh 
des Mstorisch-kritischen Mnleitung in das Alte Testament, § 108; 
§ 4, pp. 14-19, Clark's Translation.) i 

Note ( 35 ), p. 36. 
" Der Deuteronomist," says De Wette, " will, wie es 
scheint, sein ganzes Buch als von Mose abgefasst angesehen 
wissen." (Einleitung in das Alte Testament, § 162, d. p. 203.) 
Hartmann makes a similar assertion with respect to "the 
author of the last four books." {Forschungen ilber d. Penta- 
teuch, p. 538.) 

Note ( 36 ), p. 36. 
The earliest writers whom De Wette can quote as doubting 
the genuineness of the Pentateuch, are Celsus the Neo- 
Platonist (a.d. 130), and Ptolemy, the Valentinian Gnostic, 
a writer of the third century. (See his Mnleitung, § 164, a ; 
p. 205 ; and for the passages to which he refers see Origen, 
Contra Celsum, iv. 42, and Epiphanius, Adversus Hcereses, 
xxxiii. 4, p. 207.) Apion, and the other adversaries whom 
Josephus answers, all admitted the Pentateuch to be the work 
of Moses. 

Note ( 37 ), p. 37. 
The differences in the rationalistic views of the time 
when the Pentateuch was composed are thus summed up 
by Professor Stuart," j "Almost every marked period from 
Joshua down to the return from the Babylonish exile, has 
been fixed upon by different writers as a period appro- 
priate to the production of the work. To Ezra some have 
assigned the task of producing it; in which, if we may 

* Ilistorico- Critical Introduction I J Critical History and Defence of 
to the Pentateuch, Edinburgh, Clark, the Old Testament Can on, § 3, pp. 
1850. I 43, 44. 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 269 

hearken to them, he engaged in order that he might confirm 
and perpetuate the ritual introduced by him. To Hilkiah 
the priest, with the connivance of Josiah, Mr. Norton and 
others have felt inclined to attribute it, at the period when a 
copy of the Law is said to have been discovered in the 
Temple. Somewhere near this period Gesenius and De 
Wette once placed it; but both of them, in later times, 
have been rather inclined to recede from this, and to look to 
an earlier period. The subject has been through almost 
boundless discussion, and a great variety of opinions have 
been broached respecting the matter, until recently it has 
taken a turn somewhat new. The haut ton of criticism in 
Germany now compounds between the old opinions and the 
new theories. Ewald and Lengerke both admit a groundwork 
of the Pentateuch. But as to the extent of this they differ, 
each one deciding according to his subjective feelings. The 
leading laws and ordinances of the Pentateuch are admitted 
to belong to the time of Moses. Ewald supposes that they 
were written down at that period. Then we have, secondly, 
historical portions of the Pentateuch, written, as Ewald 
judges, not by prophets, but before this order of men appeared 
among the Hebrews. . . . Then came next, according to him, 
a prophetic order of historical writers, about the time of 
Solomon. . . . Next comes a narrator .... who is to be 
placed somewhere near the period of Elijah. . . Then comes 
a fourth narrator, whom we cannot place earlier than about 
the middle of the 8th century B.C. He was followed by the 
Deuteronomist .... sometime during the latter half of 
.Manasseh's reign. . . Then just before the Babylonish exile, 
the great Collectaneum, or Corpus Auctorum omnium, was 
brought to a close. 

Lengerke . . . admits a groundwork ; but, with the excep- 
tion of some laws, it was not composed till the time of 
Solomon. Next comes a supplementarist, who must have 
lived some time in the eighth century. Then comes the 
Deuteronomist, as in Ewald ; but he is assigned by Lengerke 
to the time of Josiah, about B.C. 624. 

Each of these writers is confident in his critical power 
of discrimination. . . Each is sure that he can appreciate 



270 NOTES. [Lect. IT. 

all the niceties and slight diversities of style and diction, 
and therefore cannot be mistaken. Each knows, in his own 
view with certainty, how many authors of the Pentateuch 
there are ; while one still reckons six and the other three. . . 
I will not now ask, who shall decide when Doctors disagree ?" 

Compare also Havernick, Handbuch, &c, § 145 ; § 41, pp. 
442-444, E.T. 

Note (37, b), p. 37. 

Leben Jesu, § 13 ; pp. 55-56, E. T. 

Note ( 38 ), p. 38. 
The purpose of Moses is to write not his own history, nor 
even the civil history of his nation, but the theocratic history 
of the world up to his own time. This is the clue to all 
those curious insertions and omissions which have astonished 
and perplexed mere historians. (See Havernick, Handbuch, 
&c, § 106 ; § 2, pp. 1-7, E. T. ; and compare Lecture VII. 
p. 226.) Still, his own history to a certain extent, and the 
public history of his nation, up to his time, do in fact form 
the staple of his narrative. 

Note ( 39 ), p. 39. 
Sir Gr. C. Lewis says : " The infidelity of oral tradition, 
with respect to past occurrences, has been so generally re- 
cognised, that it would be a superfluous labour to dwell upon 
it. For our present purpose, it is more material to fix the 
time during which an accurate memory of historical events may 
be perpetuated by oral tradition alone. Newton, in his work 
on Chronology , k fixes it at eighty or a hundred years for a 
time anterior to the use of writing : and Volney says that,' 
among the Red Indians of North America, there was no 
accurate tradition of facts wdiich were a century old. Mallet, 
in his work on Northern Antiquities, 1 remarks that, among 
the common class of mankind, a son remembers his father, 
knows something about his grandfather, but never bestows a 
thought on his more remote progenitors. This would carry 
back a man's knowledge of his owti family for about a 

k Chronology of Ancient King- I duction, p. 7. 
doms amended (1728, 4to), Intro- | \ l Ch. ii. 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 271 

hundred years ; and it is not likely that his knowledge of 
public affairs, founded on a similar oral tradition, could reach 
to an earlier date." {Credibility of Early Roman History, 
vol. i. pp. 98, 99.) 

Note ( 40 ), p. 39. 
See Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and Know- 
ledge of the Holy Scriptures, ch. h. § 1., vol. i. p. 54. " In the 
antediluvian world, when the life of man was so protracted, 
there was comparatively little need for writing. Tradition 
answered every purpose to which writing, in any kind of 
characters, could be subservient ; and the necessity of erect- 
ing monuments to. perpetuate public events could scarcely 
have suggested itself ; as, during those times, there could be 
little danger apprehended of any important fact becoming 
obsolete, its history having to pass through very few hands, 
and all these friends and relatives in the most proper sense 
of the terms : for they lived in an insulated state, under a 
patriarchal government. Thus it was easy for Moses to be 
satisfied of the truth of all he relates in the Book of Genesis, 
as the accounts came to him through the medium of very 
few persons. From Adam to Noah there was but one man 
necessary to the transmission of the history of this period of 
1656 years. Adam died in the year of the world 930, and 
Lamech the father of Noah was born in the year 874 ; so 
that Adam and Lamech were contemporaries for fifty-six 
years. Methusaieh, the grandfather of Noah, was born in 
the year of the world 687, and died in the year 1656, so that 
he lived to see both Adam and Lamech — from whom (Adam ?) 
doubtless he acquired the knowledge of this history, and was 
likewise contemporary with Noah for 600 years. In like 
manner Shem connected Noah and Abraham, having lived to 
converse with both ; as Isaac did with Abraham and Joseph, 
from whom these things might be easily conveyed to Moses 
by Amram, who was contemporary with Joseph. Supposing 
then all the curious facts recorded in the Book of Genesis to 
have had no other authority than the tradition already referred 
to, they would stand upon a foundation of credibility superior 
to any that the most reputable of the ancient Greek and Latin 
historians can boast." 



272 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

Note (41), p. 39. 
See Sir G. C. Lewis's Credibility, &c, vol. i. p. 101. "In 
a nation which has no consecutive written history, leading 
events would be perhaps preserved, hi their general outlines, 
for about a hundred years. Special circumstances might 
however give to an event a larger hold on the popular 
memory." He instances, 1st, the attempt of Cylon at Athens, 
the circumstances of which were remembered in B.C. 432, 
one hundred and eighty years after (Thucydid. i. 126) ; and 
2nd, the battle of the Allia, the memory of which continued 
(he thinks) among the common people at Koine to the time 
of the earliest annalists, or 150 years. 

Note ( 42 ), p. 40. 
The force of this argument is, no doubt, weakened, but it 
is not destroyed, by a preference of the Septuagint or of 
the Samaritan numbers to those of the Hebrew text. The 
Septuagint numbers, which are the most unfavourable to 
the argument, would make the chain between Adam and 
Moses consist of eight links — viz., Mahalaleel, Noah, Salah, 
Keu, Nahor, Abraham, Jacob, and Jochebed. 

Note ( 43 ), p. 40. 
See above, note 37 ; and compare Havernick, Handbuch, 
&c, § 111 (§ 7, pp. 45-48, E. T.), and Home, Introduction, &c, 
ch. ii. § 1, vol. i. pp. 54-56. 

Note ( 44 ), p. 40. 
Having argued that the Patriarchs were almost sure to 
have committed to writing the chief facts of the early his- 
tory, especially those of the Creation, the Fall of Man, the 
promise of Eedemption, and the various revelations which 
they received from God, Yitringa says — " Has vero schedas 
et scrinia Patrum, apud Israelitas conservata, Mosen opi- 
namur collegisse, digessisse, ornasse, et ubi deficiebant com- 
plesse, atque ex iis primum librorum suorum confecisse." 
(Observatiories Sacrce., i. 4, § 2 p. 36.) 

Note (45), p. 40. 
Commentaire Litteral, Preface, vol. i. p. xiii. " Quoiqu' a 
prendre les choses dans la rigueur, il ne soit pas impossible 
que Mo'ise n'ait pu apprendre par la tradition orale tout ce 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 273 

qu'il nous dit de la creation du Monde, du Deluge, et de l'age 
des Patriarches, . . . il est pourtant assez croyable que ce 
Legislateur avoit des memoires et des recueils qui se con- 
servoient dans les families des Juifs. Le detail des Genealo- 
gies, les dates des faits, les circonstances des evenements, le 
nombre des annees de la vie des Patriarches, tout cela ne 
peut guere s'apprendre d'une maniere si precise et si exacte, 
que par des ecrits et des memoires." Compare Havernick 
(Handbuch, &c, § 115 ; § 11, pp. 81-82, E. T.), who while he 
maintains that the narrative of Genesis "has its origin 
primarily in oral tradition," still allows it to be probable 
" that in the time of the writer a part of the oral tradition 
had been already committed to writing," and that " the 
author makes use of certain older monuments." 

Note (46), p. 40. 
See above, notes 19, 20, and 21. In estimating the an- 
tiquity of alphabetic writing, we must remember, that the 
earliest extant specimens of the Babylonian (which have 
been assigned to about the 22nd century B.C.) present indica- 
tions of previous stages having been passed through, which 
must have each occupied some considerable period. It is 
certain that the Babylonians, like the Egyptians, began with 
picture-writing. 111 But in the most ancient remains this 
stage has been long past; a few letters only still bear a 
resemblance to the objects : while the bulk have lost all 
trace of their original form. The writing too has ceased 
altogether to be symbolical, and (with the exception of certain 
determinatives) is purely phonetic, having thus past the second 
stage of the art. In Egypt, the hieroglyphics of the Pyramid 
period (b.c. 2450-2300), sometimes " written in the cursive 
character, prove that writing had been long in use." (See 
Wilkinson's Appendix to book ii. of the author's Herodotus, 
ch. viii. § 9 ; vol. ii. p. 344.) 

Note (47), p. 40. 
See Bishop Gleig's Introduction, in his edition of Stack- 
house's History of the Bible, vol. i. p. xx. Compare the article 

m See Sir H. Eawlinson's Essay I ia, ,y in the first volume of the author's 
" On the Early History of Babylon- ' Herodotus, Essay vi. pp. 443, 444. 

T 



274 NOTES. Lect. II. 

on ' Writing,' in Kitto's Biblical Cyclopaedia, vol. ii. pp. 971, 
972. 

Note ( 48 ), p. 43. 
The Armenian History of Moses of Chorene commences 
from Adam. Taking the Hebrew Scriptures for his basis, 
he endeavours to blend and harmonise with them the tra- 
ditions of primeval times recorded by Berosus, Abydenus, 
and especially by a certain Mar Ibas, or Mar Abas, a learned 
Syrian, said to have lived about B.C. 150. He identifies 
Adam with the Babylonian Alorus (i. 3), Noah with Xisuthrus 
(ibid), Shem with Zervan who (he says) is the same as 
Zoroaster (i. 5) ; Ham with Titan, whence the Titans are the 
descendants of Ham (ibid.), and Nimrod with Belus (i. 6.) 
Armenian history is regarded as commencing from this time, 
Haicus or Hiag, the fifth descendant of Japhet, son of Thaclath 
or Togarmah, revolts from Belus, or Nimrod, and withdraws 
from Babylon to Armenia, where he establishes himself. 
War follows: Haicus is attacked by Belus, but makes a 
successful resistance, and Belus falls in the battle (i. 9, 10.) 
From this point Moses seems in the main to follow native 
traditions, which do not appear to have possessed much 
historical value. It has been conjectured with good reason 
that " the earliest literature of Armenia was a series of national 
poems," and that these compositions furnished Moses of 
Chorene with a great part of his materials. (See Prichard's 
Physical History of Mankind, vol. iv. p. 255 ; and compare 
Neumann's Versuch einer Greschichte der Armenischen Literatur, 
published at Leipsic in 1836.) Michael Chamich and other 
Armenian writers have chiefly copied from Moses. 

Note ( 49 ), p. 43. 
The two epic poems, the Bamayana and the Mahabha- 
rata, profess to be historical, but are not thought by the best 
modern authorities to contain more than some " shadow of 
truth." They are assigned to about the third century B.C. 
(See Professor H. H. Wilson's Introduction to his translation 
of the Big-Veda-Sanhita, pp. xlvi., xlvii.) The attempt to 
construct from them, and from other Sanscritic sources of 
even worse character, by the aid of Megasthenes and of a 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 275 

large amount of conjecture, a chronological scheme reaching 
to b. c. 3120, which M. Bunsen has made in the third volume 
of his Egypt (pp. 518-564), appears to me a singular instance 
of misplaced ingenuity. 

Note ( 50 ), p. 43. 
The Chinese, like the Hindus, carry back the history of 
the world for several hundred thousand years. Their own 
history, however, as a nation, does not profess to commence 
till about b. c. 2600 : and authentic accounts, according to 
the views of those who regard their early literature with 
most favour, go back only to the 22nd century b. c. (See 
Eemusat, Wouveaux Melanges Asiatiques, vol. i. p. 65. " I/hi- 
stoire de la Chine remonte avec certitude jusqu'au vingt- 
deuxieme siecle avant notre ere ; et des traditions qui n'ont 
rien de meprisable permettent d'en reporter le point de 
depart quatre siecles plus haut, a l'an 2637 avant Jesus 
Christ." Compare Mailla, Histoire Grdnerale de la Chine, vol. i. ; 
Grosier's Discours Preliminaire prefixed to his Description de 
la Chine, published at Paris in 1818-1820 ; and M. Bunsen's 
Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 379-407.) The entire isolation of China, 
and the absence of any points of contact between it and the 
nations of Western Asia, would render this early history, even 
if authentic, useless for the purposes of the present Lectures. 
I confess however that I put little faith in the conclusions of 
modern French antiquarians ; and that I incline to look with 
suspicion on all Chinese history earlier than the time of Con- 
fucius, b. c. 550-480, when it is admitted that contemporary 
records commence. (See Prichard's Physical History of Man- 
kind, vol. iv. pp. 475-9 ; and compare Asiatic Researches, 
vol. ii. p. 370.) 

Note ( 51 ), p. 43. 
The evidences on this head were carefully collected by 
Mr. Stanley Faber in his Bampton Lectures for the year 1801, 
afterwards published as Horoe Mosaicce, ch. iv. pp. 130-184* 
The most remarkable tradition is that of the Hindus. In the 
Bhagavat it is related that in the reign of Satiavrata, the 
seventh king of the Hindus, mankind became almost univer- 
versally wicked, only Satiavrata and seven, saints continuing 

t2 



276 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

pious. The Lord of the universe, therefore, loving the pious 
man, and intending to preserve him from the sea of de- 
struction caused by the depravity of the age, thus told him 
how he was to act. " In seven days from the present time, 
O thou tamer of enemies, the three worlds will be plunged in 
an ocean of death ; but in the midst of the destroying waves, 
a large vessel, sent by me for thy use, shall stand before thee. 
Then shalt thou take all medicinal herbs, all the variety of 
seeds ; and accompanied by seven saints, encircled by pairs 
of all brute animals, thou shalt enter the spacious ark and 
continue in it, secure from the flood on one immense ocean, 

without light, except the radiance of thy holy companions 

Then shalt thou know my true greatness, rightly named the 
supreme Godhead ; by my favour all thy questions shall be 
answered, and thy mind abundantly instructed." After seven 
days, the sea overwhelming its shores, deluged the whole 
earth; while the flood was augmented by showers from 
immense clouds ; when Satiavrata saw the vessel advancing, 
and entered it with his companions, having executed the 
commands of God. After a while the deluge abated, and 
Satiavrata, having been instructed in all divine and human 
knowledge, was appointed the seventh Menu, and named 
Vaivaswata by the Supreme Being. From this Manu the 
earth was re-peopled, and from him mankind received their 
name Manudsha. (See an Article by Sir W. Jones in the 
first volume of the Asiatic Researches, pp. 230-4. Compare 
Faber's Horce Mosaics, ch. iv. pp. 139, 140 ; Carwithen's 
Bampton Lectures, III. pp. 87, 88 ; and Kalisch's Historical 
and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. i. 
p. 138, E. T.) 

The Chinese traditions are said to be less clear and deci- 
sive. They speak of a " first heaven " — an age of innocence, 
when " the whole creation enjoyed a state of happiness ; when 
every thing was beautiful, every thing was good ; all beings 
were perfect in their kind ;" whereto succeeded a " second 
heaven," introduced by a great convulsion. " The pillars of 
Heaven were broken — the earth shook to its foundations — 
the heavens sunk lower towards the north — the sun, the 
moon, and the stars changed their motions — the earth fell to 



Lect.IL] NOTES. 277 

pieces ; and the waters enclosed within its bosom burst forth 
with violence, and overflowed it. Man having rebelled against 
heaven, the system of the universe was totally disordered. 
The sun was eclipsed, the planets altered their course, and 
the grand harmony of nature was disturbed." (Faber, florae 
Mosaicce, ch. iv. pp. 147, 148.) 

The Armenians accept the Scriptural account, which they 
identify with the Chaldasan. They can scarcely be said to 
possess any special national tradition on the subject, except 
that which continues to the present day — the belief that the 
timbers of the ark are still to be seen on the top of Ararat. 
The Greek tradition concerning the flood of Deucalion needs 
only to be mentioned. Curiously enough it takes the form 
most closely resembling the Mosaic account in the pages of 
Lucian, n the professed scoffer. Traditions of a great deluge 
were also found in all parts of the New World and in some 
of the islands of the Pacific. (Faber, Horce Mosaicce, ch. iv. ; 
Kalisch, vol. i. p. 140, E. T. ; Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, 
vol. iii., Appendix, pp. 309, 310.) 

Note (52), p. 43. 
See Gen. x. 10 ; xi. 2-5 ; xxxix. et seq. Compare Herod, 
i. 7 ; ii. 2, 109, 142 ; Plat. Tim. p. 22, B.; Diod. Sic. books i. 
and ii.; Justin, i. 1 ; &c. Josephus well expresses the grounds 
on which the Egyptian and Babylonian annals are to be pre- 
ferred to those of all other heathen nations. He ranks the 
Phoenician histories decidedly below them. (See his work 
Contra Apionem, i. 6 ; "On p,ev ovv irap Alyvirrtow re fcal 
B a/3 'vXcov low, etc /jLafcpordrcov avco6ev %p6vcov, ttjv Trepl 
ras avaypacfra? eir ipbeXeiav, ottov puev ol lepew rjcrav 
iyfce)(€ipt,(rfievoi koi irepl ravra^ e^cXocrocpovv, Xa\$a?ot Be 
irapa tow B a/3 v\(ov low, /cat ore {lakMJTa Be t&v "IZWrjatv 
eiriiLiyvvpbkvwv e^prjcravTO <&olvace<$ rypd/jb^aatv .... i7recBrj 
avyy^wpovaiv airavres, edaeiv /hoc Bokco.) 

Note ( 53 ), p. 44. 
Scaliger was the first to draw the attention of scholars 
to the writings of Berosus and Manetho. In his work De 
Emendatione Temporum he collected their fragments and sup- 

n De Ded Syria, § 12. 



278 NOTES. Lect II. 

ported their authority. The value of Manetho was acknow- 
ledged by Heeren (Randbuch der Geschichte der Staaten des 
Alterthums, i. 2, p. 54, E. T.), Marsham (Canon Chronicus, 
Pref. p. 2, &c), and others, before much progress had been 
made in decyphering the inscriptions of Egypt. Berosus, 
always quoted with respect by our divines, did not find 
much favour with German historical critics till his claims 
were advocated by Niebuhr. (See the Vortrdge iiber Alte 
G-eschichte, vol. i. pp. 16-19.) 

Note ( 54 ), p. 45. 

One other ancient writer, had his work come down to us in 
a complete form, or had we even possessed a fragment or two 
of its earlier portion, might have deserved to be placed 
nearly on a level with Berosus and Manetho, viz. Menander 
of Ephesus, who, living probably about the same time with 
them, and having access to the archives of the only nation 
which could dispute with Egypt and Babylon the palm of 
antiquity and the claim of inventing letters, composed in 
Greek a Phoenician history, which seems, from the few 
fragments of it that remain, to have been a work of the very 
highest character. Of these fragments however none touch 
the period between the Creation and the death of Moses ; 
and it may even be suspected that Menander's history did 
not go back so far. At any rate, if it did, we are completely 
ignorant what representation he gave of the early times. (See 
the Fragments of Menander in Mons. C. Miiller's Fragmenta 
Historicorum Grcecorum, vol. iv. pp. 445-8, and the testimony 
to his value borne by Mebuhr, Vortrdge iiber Alte Geschichte, 
vol. i. p. 17, and 93, note 1 . 

Nothing has been said here of Sanchoniathon, in the first 
place, because it seems more than probable that the work 
ascribed to Mm was the mere forgery of Philo Byblius ; and 
secondly, because, though called a " Phoenician History," the 
fragments of the work which remain shew it to have been 
mainly, if not entirely, mythological (See Movers, Jahrbucher 
fur Theologisehe und Christliche Philosophic, 1836, vol. i. 
pp. 51-91 ; Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 1264, et seq. ; Niebuhr, 
Vortrdge iiber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 93, note 1 ; and 
C. Midler, Fragmenta Hist. Gr. vol. iii. pp. 560-1.) 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 279 

Note ( 55 ), p. 45. 

M. Bunsen, speaking of the Egyptian monuments, says : 
" Such documents cannot indeed compensate for the want 
of written History. Even Chronology, its external frame- 
work, cannot be elicited from them." (Egypt's Place in Uni- 
versal History, vol. i. p. 32, E. T.) This may be said with 
at least as much truth of the Babylonian and Assyrian 
records. 

Note (56), p. 45. 

The following is Manetho's chronological scheme, according 
to Eusebius (Chronica, i. 20, pp. 93-107, ed. Mai.) : — 

Years. 

Eeign of Gods 13,900 

Eeign of Heroes 1,255 

Keign of Kings 1,817 

Eeign of 30 Memphite Kings 1,790 

Eeign of 10 Thinite Kings 350 

Eeign of Manes and Heroes 5,813 

24,925 ! 

Thirty dynasties of Kings (about) . . . . 5,000 ° 

29,925 
Note ( 57 ), p. 45. 
The following was the scheme of Berosus, if we may trust 
Eusebius. (See his Chronica, i. 1, and 4 ; p. 5, and p. 18.) : — 

Years. 

1. Ten kings from Alorus to Xisuthrus reigned 432,000 

2. Eighty-six kings from Xisuthrus to the ) „ nRft 

Median conquest ) 

3. Eight Median kings 224 

4. Eleven kings [48]* 

5. Forty-nine Chaldsean kings 458 

6. Nine Arabian kings 245 

7. Forty-five kings down to Pul 526 

466,581 



Baron Bunsen gives the sum of 
the years of the 30 dynasties as 4922, 
4954, or 5329, according to variations 
of reading or statement. {Egypt, 
vol. i. p. 82, E. T.) 

p In the Armenian the number 



here is 33,091, but this may be cor- 
rected from Syncellus. (Fragm. Hist. 
Or. vol. ii. p. 503.) 

i This number is only given in the 
margin, and is very doubtful. 



280 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

Note ( 58 ), p. 45. 
Vide supra, note 56. M. Bunsen {Egypt's Place, &c. vol, i. 
p. 70, E. T.) accuses Eusebius of having changed the order of 
Manetho's numbers, and by a dexterous transposition he 
seeks to transfer to the human period a space of nearly 4000 
years. He would make the divine period consist of the 
following : — 

Years. 

1. Keign of Gods 13,900 

2. Keign of Heroes 1,255 

3. Eeign of Heroes and Manes together . . 5,813 

20^986" 
The human period he represents thus : — 

1. Kings (no capital mentioned) 1,817 

2. Thirty Memphite kings 1,790 

3. Ten Thinite kings 350 

4. Thirty Dynasties (say) 5,000 

8,957 

But there is absolutely no ground, beyond gratuitous con- 
jecture, for making this change ; which involves Manetho in 
the contradiction, that Manes, the Ghosts of Mortals, exist 
before there have been any mortals. (See the Fragmenta 
Historicorum G-roecorum of Mons. C. Miiller, vol. ii. p. 528, 
where M. Bunsen's theory is rejected. 

Note (59), p. 46. 
Chronographia, p. 52, D. M. Bunsen was the first to call 
attention to this passage. (Egypt's Place, &c, vol. i. p. 86.) 
If sound, it is of very great importance, as indicating that 
Manetho knew and allowed that his kings and dynasties were 
not always consecutive. It has been recently denied that 
Manetho did this, and it has been proposed to amend the 
passage of Syncellus by introducing into it the name of 
another writer, Anianus, who (it is supposed) made the 
reduction in question. (See an Article in the Quarterly 
Review for April, 1859 ; Art. IV.. pp. 395-6.) But tin's emen- 
dation is quite inadmissible ; for the clear object of Syncellus 
in the passage is to shew that Manetho's own numbers were at 
variance with Scripture. Whether Syncellus rightly reports 



Lect. II. NOTES. 281 

Manetlio or no, is another question. If he does not, the argu- 
ment in the text, so far, falls to the ground ; and we must 
admit that Egyptian Chronology — as represented by Ma- 
netho — was about 2000 years in excess of the Chronology of 
Scripture. Still we must bear in mind, that, whether Manetho 
allowed it or not, his dynasties were in fact sometimes con- 
temporary, as is proved by the Egyptian monuments. (Wil- 
kinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 343, 349, &c. 
Stuart Poole, Horoe Mgyptiacoe, pp. 110, 112, 123, &c.) If 
therefore he did not in his chronology make any allowance on 
this account, he could not fail to be in considerable excess of 
the truth. 

Note (60), p. 47. 
See the latest conclusions of Sir Gardner Wilkinson, in the 
author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 342-3 ; and compare Mr. Stuart 
Poole's Horce JEgyptiacce, p. 97. See also the extracts from 
Professor Kask's Egyptian Chronology, contained in Dr. 
Prichard's Historical Records of Ancient Egypt, § 6, pp. 91-111. 

Note ( 61 ), p. 48. 
See the Fragments of Berosus in Mons. C. Midler's Frag- 
menta Historicorum Grrwcorum, vol. ii. p. 496, Frs. 1 and 5. 
Teveadat <f>wo~l yjibvov, ev & to ttclv ct/cotos zeal vBcop elvai, 
/cal ev tovtols tfha reparoiS^ /col elBicftveis (lege IBiocfrveis), 
Ta? IBeas €%ovra ^o)oyovelo-0ai. . . XIpo? Be tovtols l%6va$ teal 
epirera icai o<fieis /cat aKXa %(oa ifkeiova OavjJiaard. . "Apyeiv Be 
tovtcov irdvTcov yvval/ca fj ovo/jlo, 'Ofiopco/ca' elvai Be touto XaX- 
Baio-rl fiev SaXdrO, 'JLWwvlcttI Be /leOeppinveveaOai OdXaaaa. 
OuTCt)? Be twv oXcov crvveGTWicoTLQV eiraveXQbvTa BrjXov a^tcrat, 
tt]v yvva2/ca pueanv, /cal to fiev rj/uuicrv avTr\<$ iroifjcrai yrjv, to 8' 
aXXo rjfJLiav ovpavov, /cal tcl ev avTjj £coa defyavtcrai. 'AXXrjyopi- 
/cco? Be (pwcTL tovto ire^vaioXoyelaOai. 'Typov yap ovto? tov 
iravTos /cal ^cocov ev avTcp yeyevTj/nevcov, tovtov tov Oebv dfpeXelv 
tt]v eavTov /cecpaXrjv, /cal to pvev alfjua tovs aXXovs deovs <j>vpa- 
aav Tjj yfj, /cal BiairXdcrai tov? dvOpGOTrov? Bo b voepov? re elvai 
/cal (ppovrjerecos Oelas fieTexeiv. Tov Be BrjXov pueaov TepuovTa 
to (t/cotos x w pL°~ ai in v ^al ovpavov air dXXrjXwv, /cal BiaTa^at 
tov /coo-fJsOV tcl Be tfaa ov/c evey/covTa ttjv tov </>o)to? Bvvapav 
(f>0aprjvat. 'IBovTa Be tov HrjXov %<&>pav epnpoov /cal /capirofybpov 



282 NOTES. [Lect.1I. 

zeeXevcraL kvl tcov Oeoov tt\v zeecfraXrjv dfyeXovri eavrov ra airop- 
pvevn alfjucLTi, (fivpaorcu ttjv yr\v zeal StarrXdo-ai \_av6 pooirovs /ecu] 
On p let rd Svvdpueva rov ciepa cftepecv cnroTeXeaai Se rov RrjXov 
zeal dcrrpa /cal rjXiov /ecu creXrjvnv zeal tov<$ irevre irXavrjras. 
(Ap. Syncell. Chronograph, pp. 29, 30.) 

" His dictis, pergit porro, regesque Assyriorum singillatini 
atque ex ordine enumerat, decern videlicet ab Aloro primo 
rege usque ad Xisuthrum, sub quo magnum illud primumque 
diluvium contigisse ait quod Moses quoque commemorat." 
(Ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 1, p. 5, ed. Mai.)' 

Note (62), p. 48. 
See Niebuhr's Vortrage ilber Alte Geschichte (vol. i. p. 20, 
note), where lie notices the abuse of the parallel made by 
some, who maintained that the Mosaical account of the 
Creation was derived from the Babylonian. 

Note ( 63 ), p. 49. 
See the well-known passage of Josephus, where, after 
remarking on the longevity of the Patriarchs, he says — 
yiaprvpovcn Si /jlov tw Xoyqy iravres ol irap "l&XXncri /ecu {3ap{3d- 
poL$ avyy patydfjuevoL ra$ dp%cu6\oyia<$. Kal yap zeal M.dv€0co<; 
6 rrjv Toyv AlyvTTTia/codV iroir)crdpL€vo<$ dvaypacfirjv, kcu T$wp(0crcrb<; 
6 ra XaXSai/ea crvvayayoov, zeal MoXo? [lege IS/LoXcov], zeal 
'Ecmato?, zeal rrpbs avrols 6 Klyvirrto^ 'lepcovv/jios, ol re ra 
t&oivizcizea crvvra^d/jLevoL, crvjbucj)0)vovac rols vir i/uov Xeyo pivots' 
'Hcr/oSo? re, zeal f E/carato?, zeal 'IZXXdvtzeos, zeal 'Azeovo-iXaos, 
zeal 7Tj0o? tovtois "E0O/9O? zeal Nt/coXao? Icrropovat rovs dpyalov^ 
^rjaavras ern %iXta. (Antiq. Jud. i. 3.) 

Note (64), p. 49. 
See Faber's Horos Mosaics, ch. iii. pp. 119, 120 ; and 
Home's Introduction, vol. i. p. 158. 

Note ( 65 ), p. 50. 
Fragmenta Historicorum Groscorum, vol. ii. p. 501, Fr. 7. 
'E7rl aicrovOpov rov /uuiyav zearazeXvafibv yevecrOat' dvayeypd(j)0at 
Se rov Xoyov ovtW rov Kpovov avra> zeard rov vrrvov 
eirtardvra cfrdvat fjunvbs Aato-lov irifiTrrr] zeal Sezedrn rov? 
dv6 pa)7rovs vtto KarazeXvaptov StafyOaprjcrecrOat. KeXevaat ovv 
Sea ypa/JL/jbdrcov irdvrcov dp%ds zeal pticra zeal reXevrds opv^avra 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 283 

Oelvat ev nroXei rfkiov ZtiirirapoLS, Kal vavTrrjyrjcrdfjLevov <Tfcd(po<; 
efifirjvai fjuera tcov crvyyevcov Kal dvayKalcov cplXcov' evOeaOai he 
fipaifjuara Kal TTo/juara, ipufBaXelv he Kal %coa irTrjva Kal rer pa- 
ir oh a, Kal irdvra evTpeTTio-dfjbevov nrXelv . . . tov 8' ov irapaKov- 
cravra vav7rr)yr)crai crKdcpos to puev /jLtjkos crTahlcov irevre, 
to he irXaTOS arahlcov hvo' rd he GWTayQevra nravra crvv- 
OeaOat, Kal yvvaiKa Kal reKva Kal tov$ dvajKalovs cplXovs 
i{A@i{3dcrao. Tevofjuevov he rov KaTaKkvo-yuov Kal evOecos Xr)- 
%avro<$ tcov bpvecov rivd tov ^icrovOpov dcpievac. Ta he 
ov Tpocf>r)v evpovra ovre t ottov ottov Ka6 Icrai, irdXiv eX- 
Oeiv eh to ttXolov. Tov he &icrov6pov ttoXlv fierd Tivas 
rjfjbepas, dcpcevai rd opvea' ravra he ttclXlv eh ttjv vavv eXOelv 
rov? irohas 7re7rrfKo)fjbivov<; e^ovra' to he rplrov d(f>e9evra 
ovk erl eXdelv et? to ttXoIov. Tov he Bi&ovOpov evvor)6r)vai 
yrjv dvaTrecprjvevac, hteX06vra re tcov rod ttXolov patficov 
pep o<$ tl Kal Ihovra irpocroKeTkav rb ttXolov Spec tivI eK/Srjvac 
fjuera tt)<; yvvaiKos Kal rrjs Ovyarpbs Kal tov Kv(3epvr)rov TTpo^KV- 
vrjcravTa rrjv yrrv Kal /3 co jjlov Ihpvcr d/uuevov Kal Over idaavra 
Toh Oeoh yevecrOai fierd tcov eKJBdvTcov tov ttXolov dfyavr). Tovs 
8' vTTOfJLeivavTas ev tco ttXoico, fir) elcrTTopevofievcov tcov irepl tov 
EiicrovOpov, eKpdvTas ^rjTeiv avTOV eirl bvbfiaTos [SocovTas' tov 
he EzlcrovOpov avTov fiev avToh ovk e.Ti bcpOrjvai, cpcovr)v he Ik 
tov depos yeveaOai KeXevovaav o>9 heov avTovs elvai 6eocre/3ei<;' 
Kal yap avTov hid tt)v evcrefieiav iropevecrOai fieTa tcov Oecov ol- 
KrjcTovTa . . . elire 8' avToh otl eXevaovTai ttclXlv eh Y!>a(3vXcova, 
Kal &)9 eifiapTai avToh ifc ZiiTnrdpcov dveXofievocs Ta ypdfifiaTa 
hiahovvai Toh dvOpcoTrois, Kal otl elalv ottov i) y^copa 'Ap fie- 
vias eo-T iv . . . ^XOovTas ovv tovtovs eh l&aftvXcova Ta Te e/c 
Xt7T7rdpcov ypd/jufjuaTa dvopv^at Kal 7ro\a? iroXXas KTi&VTas Kal 
lepd avihpvcrafjbevovs nrcCXiv eirtKTicraL tt)v J$a/3vXcova. (Ap. 
Syncell. Chron. pp. 30, 31, Compare Euseb. Chronica, i. 3, 
pp. 14-16.) 

Note ( 66 ), p. 50. 
Fragment. Hist Grr. vol. iv. p. 280, Fr. 1. Mera Evehco- 
pecr%ov aXXoi Ttves r)p%av Kal ^laiOpos, co hr) Kpwo? irpOGi^jxaivei 
p,ev ecrecrOai irXrj6o<=; b/juftpcov Aaialov te' KeXevei he nrav 6 tl 
rypa/uLfidrcov rjv eyo\xevov ev '^iXiovTroXei Trj ev ^UTirdpoitrLV diro- 
Kpvtyai. 2^Lcn6po<=; he TavTa eiriTeXea nroLrjaas evOecos eir 'Ap/jue- 
vir)$ dvenrXcoe' Kal nrapavTiKa pev KaTaXdfjb(3ave Ta e/c tov Oeov' 



284 NOTES. [Lect, II. 

rpLTT) Be rj/Jbepirj eVel vwv iiroTraae, [xerlei tcov opvlOcov, ireipnv 
nroievfjuevo^ el kov <yr\v IBoiev rod vBaro? e/cBvaav. At Be, eic- 
Se/co/jbevov o-(f>ea<; 7re\dyeo<; a yu <j) ly^av e o 9, airopeovaat ofcrj 
fcaOop/jLicrovTai, irapa tov Z,io~iQpov onrlcro) ko/jLi^ovtcli' /col eir 
avrycTLv erepat. 'Xl? Be ryac Tpirwo-iv evrv^eev (airucaro jap Brj 
irrfkov KCUTaiikeoi tovs Tapcrovs), 6eol fjbtv e£ av6pco7ro)V a<pavl- 
^ovcri, to Be ifkotov ev 'Ap/jLevlw ireplanrra ^v\cov ake^t(j>dpixaKa 
toIo-lv eVt%ft)jo/ot9 irapei'xeTo. (Ap. Syncell. Chronograph, p. 70, 
A. ; compare Euseb. Chronica, i. 7 ; p. 22, ed. Mai.) 

But little is known of Abydenus. He is first quoted by 
Eusebius in the fourth century after Christ ; on which account 
it has been generally supposed that he did not write till the 
second or third century of our era. (See Niebuhr's Kleine 
Schriften, p. 187, note 4 ; and C. Miiller's Fragm. Hist. Cfr. 
vol. iv. p. 279.) Some however regard him as a contemporary 
and pupil of Berosus, and therefore as not much later than 
the time of Alexander. (Bauer, in Ersch and Gruber's JEJncy- 
clopddie, s. v. ' Abydenus'; C. 0. Miiller, History of Greek 
Literature, vol. ii. p. 490, E. T.) His use of the Ionic dialect 
favours the earlier date. 

Note (66 b), p. 50. 
Buttmann (Mythologus, i. pp. 190, 200, &c), Yon Bohlen 
(Alte Indien, p. 78, et seq.), and Hartmann (Forschungen 
ilber d. Pentateuch, p. 795, et seq.) maintain that the story 
of the flood " sprang up in the soil of India, whence it was 
brought to the Hebrews through Babylon, after having first 
received a new colouring there." (See Havernick's Mnlei- 
tung, § 120, pp. 266, 267 ; § 16, p. 112, E. T.) But the ab- 
sence of exaggeration and of grotesqueness from the Hebrew 
account sufficiently disprove this theory. It might be argued 
with much more plausibility that the Babylonians obtained 
their knowledge from the Jews. 

Note ( 67 ), p. 51. 
See Niebuhr's Vortrdge ilber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 23. 
" Diese Erzahlung insofern von der Noahischen abweicht, 
als sie nicht nur Xisuthrus Familie sondern alle Frommen 
gerettet werden lasst, und Jceine allgemeine sondern nur eine 
Babylonische Siindfluth annimmt." 



Lect. II.] 



NOTES. 



285 



Note (67 b), p. 52. 
Antiq. Jud. i. 7. § 2 ; Mvrj/uLovevet Be tov irarpo^ rj/JLcov 'A- 
fipafjbov Bt^&ntcto? ovk ovo/jLci^cdv, \e<ycov Be ovtcds' " Mcra tov 
KarafcXvo-fibv Be/cdry yevea irapa ^LakBaioLS ti<$ rjv BUcllos avr\p 
zeal /jbeyas /ecu ra ovpavia epnreipos" 

Note ( 68 ), p. 52. 
It has been acutely suggested that the actual scheme of 
Berosus was probably the following : — 





Years. 


B.C. 


1. Antediluvian dynasty of 10 kings 


432,000 


466,618 to 34,618 \ | 


2. Dynasty of 86 kings (Chaldseans ?) 

3. Dynasty of 8 Median kings . . 

4. Dynasty of 11 kings (Chaldseans?) 

5. Dynasty of 49 Chaldsean kings . . 

6. Dynasty of 9 Arabian kings .. .. 

7. Dynasty of 45 kings (Assyrians?) 

8. Dynasty of 8 (?) Assyrian kings .. 

9. Dynasty of 6 Chaldean kings . . 


34,080 
224 
[258] r 
458 
245 
526 
122 
87 


34,618 to 2,458 
2,458 to 2,234 ' 
2,234 to 1,976 
1,976 to 1,518 
1,518 to 1,273 
1,273 to 747 
747 to 625 
625 to 538 


si 

i 

5 




36,000 





(See Gutschmidt in the Kheinisches Museum, vol. viii. p. 252 ; 
who is followed by Brandis, Rerum Assyriarum Tempora 
Umendata, p. 17 ; and Sir H. Rawlinson in the Journal of 
the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part 2 ; p. 218.) If this be a 
true representation, it would follow that the number 34,080 
is purely artificial, being simply the number required to 
make up the great Babylonian year or cycle of 36,000 years, 
in conjunction with the years of the real historical dynasties. 
The first number, 432,000, is made up of 12 such cycles 
(36,000 x 12 = 432,000.) 

Note ( 69 ), p. 53. 

See the Fragments of Abydenus in Miiller's Fragm. Hist. 

Grr. vol. iv. p. 282, Fr. 6 : " Ea tempestate prisci homines 

adeo viribus et proceritate sua tumuisse dicuntur, ut etiam 

Deos aspernerentur, celsissimumque eum obeliscum niterentur 



r This' number fills up the blank 
in Euseb. Chron. i. 4, p. 18, where 
48 is absurdly suggested in the 
margin. See above, note 57. It is 



conjectural, but it seems required by 
the native tradition that Babylon 
was founded 1903 before Alexander's 
capture of it, or b. c. 2234. 



286 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

exstruere qui nunc Babylon appellatur. Quumque jam ilium 
proxime ad Deos coelo sequassent, Dii ventorum adjutorio 
usi machine-sum opus imbecillium impellebant, humique 
prosternabant : eaque rudera Babelis nomen contraxerunt. 
Quippe eatenus unius sermonis usura freti homines erant; 
tunc autem a Diis confusio varia et dissona linguarum in eos, 
qui una lingua utebantur, immissa est." (Ap. Euseb. Chronica, 
i. 8, p. 24.) Compare also the subjoined passage, which 
Syncellus quotes from Polyhistor : — ^ZlftvWa Se <f>w<TLv, 6fio- 
(pcovcov ovtcov irdvT(ov av0pco7rcov, tivcls tovtwv irvpyov virepfxey eOr) 
olfcoSo/jLT/crcu, 07ra)5 et? tov ovpavov avaftcocn. ToO Se ®eov 
avefjbovs ificfivcrrjcravTO 1 ? avarpe-tyaL avrovs, /cat IStav eKaara) 
cj)(0V7]v hovvai' Bcb Br) ISaftvXwva rr)v ttoXiv K\7]6rivai. (Chrono- 
graph, p. 81. C.) 

Note (70), p. 53. 
The affinity of the Sanskrit with the Persian, Greek, 
Latin, and German languages was first remarked by our own 
countryman, Sir W. Jones ; but it remained for F. Schlegel 
in Germany and for Dr. Prichard in England to make a 
scientific use of the material thus provided for them. SchlegePs 
" Essay on the Language and Philosophy of the Hindoos " 
and Dr. Prichard's inaugural " Dissertation on the Varieties of 
the Human Pace " were published almost simultaneously ; but 
Schlegel's work is regarded as the more advanced production. 
(See Bunsen's Philosophy of Universal History, vol. ii. p. 50.) 

.* Note ( 71 ), p. 54. 
In 1854 M. Bunsen wrote — " Geographically then, and 
historically, it is true that Canaan was the son of Egypt : 
for the Canaanitic tribes which inhabited historical Canaan 
came from Egypt. In the same sense, Nimrod is called a 
Kushite, which means a man of the land of Kush. The 
Bible mentions but one Kush, ^Ethiopia ; an Asiatic Kush 
exists only in the imagination of the interpreters, and is the 
child of their despair. Now, Nimrod was no more a Kushite 
by blood than Canaan was an Egyptian ; but the Turanian 
(Transoxanian) tribe, represented by him, came as a de- 
vastating people, which had previously conquered that part 
of Africa, back into Asia, and there established the first 



Lect.II.J NOTES. 287 

great empire." {Philosophy of Univ. History, vol. i. p. 191. 
But in 1858 Sir Henry Rawlinson, having obtained a number 
of Babylonian documents more ancient than any previously 
discovered, was able to declare authoritatively, that the early 
inhabitants of Southern Babylonia " were of a cognate race 
with the primitive colonists both of Arabia and of the African 
Ethiopia." (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 442.) He 
found their vocabulary to be " undoubtedly Oushite or Ethio- 
pian," belonging to that stock of tongues which in the sequel 
were everywhere more or less mixed up with the Semitic 
languages, but of which we have the purest modern specimens 
in the Mahra of Southern Arabia, and the Galla of Abyssinia." 
(Ibid., note 9.) He found also that " the traditions both of 
Babylonia and Assyria pointed to a connexion in very early 
times between Ethiopia, Southern Arabia, and the cities on 
the Lower Euphrates." (Ibid.) He therefore adopted the 
term Cushite as the most proper title by which to distinguish 
the earlier from the later Babylonians ; and re-established 
beyond all doubt or question the fact of "an Asiatic Ethiopia," 
which probably no one now would be hardy enough to deny. 
(See, besides the Essay referred to above, Essay xi. of the 
same volume, p. 655, and an elaborate Article in the Journal 
of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part 2, pp. 215-259.) 

Note (72), p. 54. 
The monuments give distinct evidence of the early pre- 
dominance of Babylonia over Assyria, of the spread of 
population and civilisation northwards, and of the compara- 
tively late founding of Mneveh. (See the author's Herodotus, 
vol. i. pp. 448, 455, 456, &c.) They do not exactly prove the 
colonization of Assyria by Semites from Babyloma, but they 
favour it. (Ibid. pp. 447 and 647.) 

Note ( 73 ), p. 54. 
The Hamitic descent of the Canaanites is energetically 
denied by M. Bunsen {Philosophy of Univ. Hist., vol. i. pp. 190 
and 244), who identifies them with the Phoenicians, and regards 
their Semitic character as established. But the researches of 
Sir H. Rawlinson have convinced him, that the Canaanites 
proper were not Semites. He holds that they had a " common 



288 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

origin" with the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Libyans, — an 
origin, which he calls indifferently "Scythic or Hamite." 
" All the Canaanites," he says, " were, I am satisfied, Scyths ; 
and the inhabitants of Syria retained their distinctive ethnic 
character until quite a late period of history. According to 
the inscriptions the Khatta, or Hittites, were the dominant 
Scythic race from the earliest times, and they gave way very 
slowly before the Aramaeans, Jews, and Phoenicians, who were 
the only extensive Semitic immigrants." (Journal of Asiatic 
Society, vol. xv. part 2, p. 230, note.) 

Note (74), p. 54. 
See M. Bunsen's Philosophy of Universal History, vol. i. 
pp. 221-230, where, though classing the Himyaric with the 
Semitic languages, he admits its close resemblance, both in 
vocabulary and in grammatical forms, to the Ethiopic ; and 
compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 447, note 4, and 
pp. 659, 660. 

Note ( 75 ), p. 55. 

See Sir H. Eawlinson in the Asiatic Society's Journal, 1. s. c. 
" The Toldoth Beni Noah is undoubtedly the most authentic 
record we possess for the affiliation of those branches of the 
human race which sprung from the triple stock of the 
Noachidse." And again, p. 215, note 3 : — " The fragment 
which forms the 10th chapter of Genesis bears the Hebrew 
title of Toldoth Beni Noah, or the Genealogies of the 
Noachidse, and is probably of the very greatest antiquity." 
Compare also the author's Herodotus (vol. i. p. 445), where 
the same ethnologist remarks — "We must be cautious in 
drawing direct ethnological inferences from the linguistic 
indications of a very early age. It will be far safer, at 
any rate, in these early times to follow the general scheme 
of ethnic affiliation which is given in the tenth chapter of 
Genesis." 

Note ( 76 ), p. 55. 

The passages to which reference is here made will all be 
found in the second volume of Dr. Gaisford's edition of the 
work of Eusebius, pp. 370-392. They were derived by Euse- 
bius from the " Jewish History " of Alexander Polyhistor, a 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 289 

heathen writer. It is thought that some of Polyhistor's 
authorities, as Artapanus, Cleodemus, Demetrius, and Eupo- 
lemus, were Jews. (See the remarks of C. Muller in his 
preface to the Fragments of Polyhistor, Fragm. Hist. Gr. 
vol. iii. p. 207.) If this be allowed, the weight of heathen 
testimony is of course pro tanto diminished. But reasons have 
been already given for regarding Eupolemus as a heathen. 
(See above, note 25.) And the religious character of the 
other three is at least doubtful. 

To the writers mentioned in the text may be added Nicolas 
of Damascus, who spoke of Abraham's emigration from Chal- 
daea and settlement in Canaan. (See the Fragm. Hist. G-roec. 
vol. iii. p. 373.) 

Note ( 77 ), p. 55. 
See especially Faber's Horce Mosaica?, ch. v. pp. 225-228 ; 
and compare Patrick's Commentary on the Historical Boohs 
of the Old Testament, vol. i. p. 58 ; Home's Introduction to 
the Critical Study and Knowledge of Holy Scripture, vol. i. 
p. 174, &c. 

Note ( 78 ), p. 56. 
Sir H. Eawlinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. Essay 
vi. p. 446. 

Note ( 79 ), p. 56. 
The name of the king whom Sir H. Eawlinson identifies 
with Chedor-laomer is, in the native (Hamitic) Babylonian, 
Kudur-Mabuk. Mabuk in Hamitic is found to be the exact 
equivalent of Laomer in Semitic. This is a very recent 
discovery. 

Note (80), p. 57. 

By means of certain monumental notices it has been 
proved, with a near approach to certainty, that a Babylonian 
monarch, whose name is read as Ismi-dagon, reigned about 
B. o. 1860. Kudur-Mabuk is evidently, by the type of 
writing which he uses, and the position in which his bricks 
are found* considerably earlier. Now in the year b. c. 1976 
— a century before Ismi-dagon — occurs one of the breaks in 
Berosus ? s list ; and this break moreover occurs within 60 
years of the date (b. c. 1917) commonly assigned to the 
expedition of Chedor-laomer. These chronological coinci- 



290 NOTES. [Lect. IT. 

dences strongly confirm the argument from the identity 
of name. 

Note (81), p. 58. 

This passage is probably known to most students, but as it 
is too important to be omitted from the present review of the 
historical evidences, I subjoin it entire. 

f O M.ave0cov . . . tov '' ' A/Aevcocptv elairoLrjaas epufibXipLov /3a- 
o~i\ea } <^t)(t\ tovtov enTiOvpLrjaai Oecov yeveorOai Oearrjv, coairep 
^Qpos eh tcov irpb avrov fteftacriXevKOTcov' dveveyKelv Be tt\v eirc- 
Ovfjulav opucovvpucp puev avTco ' Aptevcocfrei, irarpos Be Tiadinos ovti, 
6 etas Be Bokovvti fierecr^Kevai (fivcrecos icara re aocfriav teal irpb- 
yveoenv tcov eaojJLevwv. Ewreu/ ovv avTco tovtov tov 6/jlcovv/jlov 
otl BvvrjcreTaL 6eov<$ IBelv, el KaOapdv anro re Xeirpcov Kal tcov 
aXXcov paapcov dvOpcoircov ttjv ^copav airacrav iroiijcretev. 'HcrOevTa 
Te tov /3acrcXea irdvTas tovs to, crcopuaTa XeXcafirjpLevovs eic Trjg 
AlyvirTov crvvayayelv ^yeveaOai Be tov ttXtjOovs puvpidBas oktco), 
/cat tovtov? els ta? XiOoto piias t<x? ev tg> 7rpo? dvaToXrjv 
puepei tov Ne/Xof epu{3aXeiv clvtov, 7Tft>9 i pyd^o lvto, Kal tcov 
aXXcov Alyvirvicov oi eyKe^copicrpbevoi. l&lvai Be Tivas ev avTois 
/ecu tcov Xoylcov lepecov cf>7]crl Xeirpa avyKe^vp^evov;. Tov Be 
' AfjLev(D(f)iv e/celvov, tov croepbv teal puavTiKov dvBpa, viroBelaai 
7T/30? avTov Te Kal tov /3acnXea %oXov tcov Oecov, el /3iao-0evTe<; 
6(f)6r)crovTcu' Kal TrpoaOepbevov elirelv otl avpupba^aovcri Tcve? 
toI<$ puapols teal Trjs AlyviTTOv K,paTr]crovcnv iir eTij TpicrfcalBe/ca. 
Mr/ ToXp/qcrai puev clvtov elirelv Tama tco fiacrtXel, ypacprjv Be 
KaTaXiirbvTa irepl irdvTcov eavTov dveXelv. 'Ez; dOvfxla Be elvai 
tov (3acriXea. K.aireiTa KaTa Xegiv ovtco yey pa<fiev' " Tcov Be 
Tals XaTopblai? &)? %povo<z l/cavbs BcrjX6ev TaXatiropovvTcov, a^tco- 
6el<$ 6 ftacnXevs Iva irpbs KaTaXvaiv avTols Kal orKeirrjv diro/jue- 
picrr}, tt]v tot€ tcov irocpuevcov epr)/jLw6elcrav iroXiv Avapiv crvve- 
Xooprjcrev. "E<7T£ 8' rj ttoXls KaTa ttjv OeoXoylav avcoOev Tvcpco- 
vlo<$. Ot Be eU TavTrjv elaeX66vTe<; feat tov tottov tovtov eU 
dirocrTacnv e^ovTes rjyepiova avT&v Xeyopuevov Tiva twv f H\t- 
oviroXiTOiv lepecov O crdper ccpov ecrTijaavTO' KaWovTO) nret- 
Oap^aovTes ev iracriv copKO/xoTrjo-av. f O Be nrpoiTdv puev avToh 
vb/jiov eOeTo, pbrfre irpocricvvelv Oeovs putjTe tcov pudXiGTa ev Al- 
yviTTcp OejuLLcrTevopuevcov lepcov ^okov aTreyea-Oai {irjBevbs, irdvTa 
Te Oveiv Kal dvaXovv, avvdirTeaOaL Be pbrjBevl ttXtjv tcov avvco- 
fAoa/jLevcov. TotavTa Be vopLoOeTr/cras Kal nrXelcrTa aWa, pudXtaTa 






Lect. II.] NOTES. 291 

roh Alyvrrrlois eOicrfioh evavrcov/jieva, e/ceXevae rroXvyetpla ra 
rijs irbXecos eiriaKevd^eiv rely?), /cal 7rpbs mrbXe/jiov erolfjuovs yeve- 
o~6at rbv Trpbs ' Ajuevcocpiv rbv /3acnXea. Auto? Be 7rpoaXa/3b/jLevos 
jjueO* eavrov /cal rcov aXXcov lepecov /cal Gvynxeyuao-jxevcov errefj/^re 
rrpea^ets rrpbs rovs vrrb TeO/jbcocrecos direXaOevras rrotfjuevas eh 
irbXtv tt]V /caXovfi€V7]v 'lepocroXv/na. Kal ra icaO* eavrov teal roi)s 
aXXovs row crvvarcjULacrdevras BrjXcbcras rj^lov avveiriarparevetv 
ojubodv/JuaSbv eir Alyvirrov. ^ird^etv fiev ovv avrovs e7rr)yyelXaro 
rrpcorov fjuev eh Avapiv rrjv Trpoyovt/crjv avrcov rrarplBa, ra eVt- 
rrjBeia roh o%Xoi<$ rrape^eiv depdovcos, virepfiayrjaecrOat he, ore 
Beoi, /cal pah lcds vrroyelpiov avroh rrjv ycbpav rrocrjcreLv. Ol Be 
vrrepyapeh yevb/xevoi irdvres irpoOvfjucos eh eiKoai /uuvptdBas dv- 
Bpcov crvve^cbpfirjcrav, /cal fier ov 7roXi) rj/cov eh Avapiv. 'A/xe- 
vcocpis Be 6 rcov Alyvirrlcov /3acriXevs, a>? errvOero ra /card rrjv 
e/celvcov ecpoBov, ov fMerplcos crvveyvOrj, rrjs Trap' ' A/nevcocpecos rod 
Yladirios /uuvrjaOeh irpoBrjXcbcrecos. Kal rrpbrepov avvayaycov 
rrXrjOos Alyvirrlcov, fcal ^ovXevad/xevos fiera rcov ev rovrots rjye- 
jjbovcov, ret re lepa %coa ra irpcora fjudXiara ev roh lepoh ri^co- 
jjueva cos y eavrov fjuereireix-^raro, ical roh Kara fiepos lepevaiv 
nraprjyyeiXev cos dacpaXecrrara rcov Oecov crvyirpv^ai ra tpava. 
Tov Be vlbv %e6cov rbv ical 'Vafiecro-rjv dirb *V d/jL-fyecos rod rra- 
rpbs covofjuacriJbevov, rrevraerrj ovra, e^eOero rrpbs rbv eavrov 
cplXov. Avrbs Be Bta/Sds roh czXXols Alyvirrlocs, ovoruv eh rpid- 
/covra fjbvpcdBas dvBpcov ^ayi^cordrcov, /cal rots iroXejJblots drrav- 
rrjcracTLv ov crvve/3aXev, dXXd fxeXXeiv Oeo/mayeiv vofjulcras, iraXtv- 
Bpo/jL7]cras rj/cev eh M.e/uicf>iv. ' AvaXa/Bcbv re rbv re ^ Airiv /cal ra 
dXXa ra i/cetae /jieraire/xcpdevra lepa £coa, evOvs eh AlOioirlav 
avv diravri rco arbXco ical irXijOec rcov Alyvirrlcov avrf^Or). ydpiri 
yap tjv avrco viroyelpuos b rcov AWibrrcov (BaaiXevs' b6ev viro- 
Be^dfievos /cal rovs o^ovs rrdvras inroXafBcov oh etryev rj %copa 
rcov Trpbs dvO pcoir Ivrjv rpocf>r)v eircr^Belcov, /cat iroXeus /cal /cco/jias 
irpbs T7)V rcov irerrpcop.evcov rpta/calBe/ca iroyv drrb rrjs dpyrjs ctv- 
rov e/cirrcotTLV avrdp/cecs, ovy rjrrbv ye /cal arparbireBov Al0to7ri/cbv 
7rpbs (pvXa/crjv eirera^e roh rrap ' A/juevctHpecos rod /3acrtXecos hr\ 
rcov bplcov rr\s Alyvirrov. Kal ra fiev /card rrjv AlOioirlav roi- 
avra. Ql Be %oXv/jblrat /careXObvres crvv roh fJLtapoh Alyvirrlcov 
dvocrlcos roh dvOpcorrois rrpocn^veyOrio-av, coare rrjv rcov irpoeipK]- 
fievcov /epdrrjenv yeiplcrrr\v (palvecrOai roh rbre ra rovrcov do-e/3t]- 
\xara 6eco^evois> Kal yap ov /jlovov TrbXecs /cal /ccofias eveirpTjaav, 

u2 



292 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

ovBe lepocrvXovvTes ovBe Xv^awb\xevoi %6ava Oeayv yp/eovvro, 
dXXd teal roh avrols birravioi^ twv ae^ao-revo/uuevcov lepcov ^a>cov 
Xpcofievoo BiereXovv, teal Ovras teal aepayeh tovtcov lepeh teal 
irpocprjTas rjvdy/ea&v yeveaOac, teal yvfjuvovs et;e/3aXov, Aeyerat 
Be on rrjv iroXnelav teal rovs v6fiov<; avroh tearaflaXo/bLevos 
lepevs, to yevos '^XiovTroXlrrj^, ovo/ua 'Ocrapalcp, arrb tov ev 
'HXtovwoXec Oeov 'Oalpecos, &>? /j,ere/3r) eh tovto to yevos, fjuere- 
reOrj Tovvo/jua teal 7rpoo-7]<yopev07] Man/cr?)?/' ,v A /nev ovv AlyviTTiot 
(frepovGL irepl roiv 'lovBalcov, ravr earl teal erepa irXelova, a 
irap L7] fit awTo/mlas evetea. Aeyeu Be 6 Mave0a)v irakiv ore fiera 
ravra eirrjXOev 6 ' AjjuevocxpL? air AlQioiria^ fxera /j,eydXr)<; Bvvd- 
yu,6&)?, teal 6 vlbs avrov e ¥d/j,'^r7]<; teal avrbs e^cov Bvva\xiv' teal 
<rvp,/3a\6vTes oi Bvo roh troi/jbeac teal roh ficapoh evlterjcrav av- 
tov9, teal ttoXXovs diroKreivavre^ eBiw^av avrovs ay^pi tcov 
opiwv Trjs^vpias. (Joseph. Contra Apionem, i. 26, 27.) 

Compare with this the briefer account of Chasremon, 
who said — Kara rovs vlrvov<s rj ^Icrt? ecpdvrj ra> ' Afjuevaxpet,, 
pbefJu^ofJuevT] avrov on to lepbv avrfjs ev ra> 7roXe/xq) tear eateaTr rat. 
<£>piTi(f)dvTr]v Be lepoypajjupbarea, edv rcov rov<; fioXva/buov^ eyov- 
toov dvBpcov teaOdpr} rrjv Alyvirrov, iravcrao~6ai 7779 irrola^ avrov. 
^irCXe^avra Be rcov einaivcov fivpidBas elteocri irevre eteftaXelv. 
'HyelcrOai Be avr covy pa pbfjbarea^yicovarjv teal 'Icoarjirov, tealrov- 
tov lepoypa/jL/JLarea. Alyvrrna S* avroh ovo/juara elvac, rco fjuev 
McovaeZ Ttaidev, tw Be ^Icocrrjircp TIereo~?j<fi. Tovtovs 8' eh U77- 
Xovaiov eXdeiv teal ernrvyelv fjuvpidai rpcdteovra oterco tearaXe- 
XeL/Jb/juevai^ virb tov 'AfAevaxfiios, a? ov OeXeiv el? rrjv Alyvirrov 
BiateofJbi^eLV. Oh faXlav avvOefJuevov? eirl ttjv AlyvTrrov arpa- 
revcrai. Tov Be ' AfjuevcocpLv ov% viro^eivavTa rrjv e<poBov avrwv 
eh AlOioTTiav (f>vyelv tearaXc7r6vra rrjv yvvaltea eytevov' fjv tepv- 
7rTop,ev7]v ev tlcti crTTrjXaioLs reteelv TralBa, ovo/xa ^/lecrarjvqv, ov 
dvBpcoOevra eteBiw^ai tol>9 'lovBaiovs eh rrjv %vplav, ovras trepl 
ecteoat fJuvpidBas, teal rbv irarepa ' A/juevaxpcv ete tt}? Al$i07ria<; 
KaraBe^aaOat. (Joseph. 1. s. c. ch. 32.) 

Note ( 82 ), p. 58. 

The name Osarsiph, which, according to Manetho, was the 
Egyptian appellation of Moses, seems to be a corruption of 
Joseph, whom Chaeremon made Moses's companion and fellow- 
helper. The statement that Moses was "a priest of Helio- 



Lect. II.] 



NOTES. 



293 



polis " — which was also made by Apion (Josephus, Contra 
Apionem, ii. 2) — is either a perversion of the Scriptural fact 
of Joseph's marriage with "the daughter of Potipherah, priest 
of On," t or possibly an indication of a fact not recorded in 
Scripture, that Moses gained his knowledge of the Egyptian 
wisdom at that seat of learning. The fear of Amenophis for 
his son's safety recalls to our thoughts the last of the plagues : 
the forced labour of the Jews in the stone-quarries is not very 
different from the compulsory brick-making ; the cry of pol- 
lution is probably connected with the earlier plagues, or 
perhaps it is only an exaggeration of the feeling which viewed 
" every shepherd " as " an abomination." (Gen. xlvi. 34.) 
The mention of Jerusalem, or rather Salem (%o\v{iitcu), 
at this time, confirms Gen. xiv. 18 ; and the occurrence of 
Kameses as a family-name in the dynasty harmonises with 
its use as a local designation. (Gen. xlvii. 11 ; Exod. i. 11, 
and xii. 37.) 

Note ( 83 ), p. 58. 

See Sir Charles Ly ell's Principles of Geology, vol. i. p. 240, 
" I need not dwell," he says, " on the proofs of the low anti- 
quity of our species, for it is not controverted by any experienced 
geologist; indeed the real difficulty consists in tracing back 
the signs of man's existence on the earth to that compara- 
tively modern period when species, now his contemporaries, 
began to predominate. If there be a difference of opinion 
respecting the occurrence, in certain deposits, of the remains 
of man and his works, it is always in reference to strata con- 
fessedly of the most modern order ; and it is never pretended 
that our race co-existed with assemblages of animals and 
plants, of which all or even a great part of the species are 
extinct." 

This remark will, I conceive, hold good, whatever judg- 
ment is ultimately formed by science of the results which 
have been recently obtained by Mr. Horner in Egypt, u by 
M. Boucher de Perthes in France/ and bv Mr. Prestwich 



* Gen. xli. 45. 

u Account of some recent Researches 
near Cairo, (first published in 
the Philosophical Transactions,) by 
Leonard Horner, esq. Parts i. and ii. 



London, 1855 and 1858. 

v Antiquites Celtiques et Ante- 
diluviennes, par M. Boucher de Per- 
thes, Paris, 1847. 



294 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

and others in our own country. The strata examined and 
said to contain the most ancient human remains hitherto 
found, are the alluvium of Egypt, and the diluvium or 
" drift " of Europe ; which are both, geologically, strata of a 
comparatively modern origin. The rashness of the conclusions 
as to the minimum antiquity of our race in Egypt, which 
Mr. Horner drew from his researches, has been ably exposed 
by a writer in the Quarterly Review (April, 1859, No. 210, 
pp. 419-421.) 

Note (84), p. 58. 
The researches and arguments of Blumenbach, Haller, 
Cuvier, and, above all, of Dr. Prichard (Physical History of 
Mankind, vol. i. pp. 114-376), have established this point 
beyond all reasonable doubt. Even the author of the Vestiges 
of Creation admits " the result, on the whole, of inquiries into 
what is called the physical history of man," to be, "that 
conditions such as climate and food, domestication, and per- 
haps an inward tendency to progress under tolerably favour- 
able circumstances, are sufficient to account for all the outward 
peculiarities of form and colour " observable among mankind. 
( Vestiges, p. 262, tenth edition.) 

Note (85), p. 59. 
" Physiological Ethnology," says Professor Max Miiller, 
" has accounted for the varieties of the human race, and 
removed the barriers which formerly prevented us from 
viewing all mankind as the members of one family, the off- " 
spring of one parent. The problem of the variety of language 
is more difficult, and has still to be solved, as we must 
include in our survey- the nations of America and Africa. 
But over the languages of the primitive Asiatic Continent 
of Asia and Europe a new light begins to dawn, which, in 
spite of perplexing appearances, reveals more and more clearly 
the possibility of their common origin. (See M. Bunsen's 
Philosophy of Universal History, vol. i. p. 474 ; and compare 
pp. 478, 479.) 

Note ( 86 ), p. 59. 
" It is pleasing to remark," says Sir H. Eawlinson, speaking 
of the different races in Western Asia, " that if we were to be 






Lect. II. J NOTES. 295 

guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and inde- 
pendently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should 
still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar as the focus from which 
the various lines had radiated. (Journal of Royal Asiatic 
Society, vol. xv. part 2, p. 232. Compare the statements of 
the same writer in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 586.) 

Note ( 87 ), p. 59. 

The only case in which we can form a judgment of the 
linguistic accuracy of the Pentateuch is that of the Egyptian 
terms, since here only have we any sufficient knowledge of 
the language spoken in the country at the time. Under this 
head come the following : — 

1. Pharaoh (r£H5), as the title of Egyptian kings (Gen. 
xii. 15, xl. 2 ; Ex. i. 11), which has been explained as Ph-ouro, 
" the king ; " but which is more probably Ph-rah, " the Sun," 
a title borne by the Egyptian monarchs from very early times. 
(Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 182, note 1.) 

2. Potiphar pD^iS), or Potipherah (jn^lDiS), which is 
Pete-ph-re, " belonging to the Sun " — a name common upon 
the monuments (Eosellini, Monumenti Storici, i. 117; Chani- 
pollion, Precis, Table Generale, p. 23), and specially appro- 
priate to a Priest of On, or Heliopolis. Compare the name 
Peteseph, " belonging to Seb (Chronos)," which, according 
to Chaeremon, was the Egyptian name of Joseph. (Supra, 
note 81.) 

3. Asenath (J*QpK), which is, according to Jablonsky 
(Opuscula, ii. 208), Asshe-neith, "worshipper of Neith," or 
more probably, as Gesenius observes (Thesaurus, ad voc), 
As-neith, " quae Neithse (est)," " belonging to Keith." It has 
been doubted whether Neith was worshipped at this early 
date ; but she seems to have been really one of the primitive 
deities of Lower Egypt. (Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. i. p. 389.) 
Her name forms an element in that of Mtocris (JVeith-akri), 
a queen of the sixth dynasty. (Wilkinson, Herodotus, Vol. ii. 
p. 165, note 2.) 

4. Ziaphnath-P aaneah (n^D~J"0D^), the name which Pha- 
raoh gave to Joseph, is best explained through the Septuagint 
tyovdofjL<fiavrjx, which closely corresponds to the Coptic Psont- 



296 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

mfaneh, " sustainer of the age," or as Jerome says, a little 
freely, " salvator mundi." (See G-esenius, Thesaurus, p. 1181.) 
The first two letters have been transposed in the Hebrew, 
either by accident, or to suit Jewish articulation, and at the 
same time to produce a name significant to Jewish ears. 

5. Moses (H^D) was undoubtedly an Egyptian name, since 
it was selected by Pharaoh's daughter (Ex. ii. 10). We are 
told that it was significant, being chosen " because she drew 
him out of the water." The real etymology was long since 
given fully by Josephus (Ant. Jud. ii. 9. § 6), partially by 
Philo (De Vita Mosis, i. Op. vol. ii. p. 83), and Clemens Alex- 
andrinus (Strom, i. p. 412.) Josephus^ — to vScop fxw ol Al- 
yv7TTioo KaXovai, vgtjs Be tov$ e£ vBcltos awQevTas. Philo — 
to vBcop /za>? hvoybaCpvcnv KhyvirTioi. Clemens — to vBa>p jjlwv 
ovo^d^ovaiv PdyviTTioi. The last of these forms is the best. 
Moil is still " water " in Coptic, and the old Egyptian word 
— given by Bunsen as muau™ — was similar. According to 
Jablonsky (Opusada, i. 152) oushe in Coptic is "to save." 
I am not aware whether this root has been found yet in the 
ancient Egyptian. 

6. Besides these names, a certain number of Egyptian 
words have been detected in the language of the Pentateuch. 
Such are ^Htf (or '•nK, LXX. a%et), which Jablonsky found 
to signify in Coptic " omne quod in palude virens nascitur " 
(Opuscula, vol. i. p. 45); perhaps n^jn (LXX 0i/3r)), the 
word used both for Xoah's Ark, and for the small ark in 
which Moses was placed (La Croze, Lexicon JEgyptiacum sub 
voc.) ; and ^."P^, which is explained from the Coptic as 
au-rek, " bow every one," or ape-reh, " bow the head." (See 
Gesenius, Hebraisches und Chaldaisches Handworterhuch, ad 
voc. p. 10, E. T., and compare De Bossi, Etym. Egypt., p. 1.) 

The geographic accuracy of the Pentateuch has been illus- 
trated by a number of writers. Dr. Stanley, one of the most 
recent and most calm-judging of modern Oriental travellers, 
observes with respect to the Mosaic accounts of the Sinaitic 
desert — " Even if the precise route of the Israelites were 
unknown, yet the peculiar features of the country have so 
much in common that the history would still receive many 
w Bunseii's Eyypt, vol. i. p. 471. Note 313. 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 297 

remarkable illustrations . . . The occasional springs, and wells, 
and brooks, are in accordance with the notices of the 
" waters " of Marah, the " springs " of Elim, the " brook " of 
Horeb ; the " well " of Jethro's daugliters, with its " troughs " 
or tanks. The vegetation is still that which we should infer 
from the Mosaic history, &c." [Sinai and Palestine, pp. 20, 21 ; 
compare pp. 22, 24, 129, &c.) In the account of Egypt the 
accuracy is seen not only in the general description of the 
territory — its rich meadows and corn-lands — its abounding 
river, edged with flags and bulrushes (Ex. ii. 3) — its wealth of 
waters derived therefrom, " streams and rivers, and ponds, and 
pools of water " (Ex. vii. 19) — its wheat, and rye, and barley, 
and flax (ib. ix. 31, 32), and green trees (palm-trees ?) yielding 
fruit (ib. x. 15) — but also in the names and sometimes in the 
sites of towns. On (TK), Pithom (DnS)), Eamesses VVD%1 
Zoan (tittS), and Migdol (TTJtp), which are among the few 
Egyptian towns mentioned by Moses, are all well-known 
places. Of On, the Greek Heliopolis, it is unnecessary to 
speak. Pithom is the Patumus of Herodotus (ii. 158), the 
city of Thmei (Justice), called "Thmuin" in the Itinerary of 
Antonine (p. 9). Harnesses is Beth-Rameses, a city of which 
we have a description in a hieratic papyrus of the 18th or 
19th dynasty. (See Cambridge Essays, 1858, Art. YI. p. 254.) 
Zoan, the Tanis of the LXX — whence the " Tanitic nome " of 
Herodotus (ii. 166) ; and the " Tanitic mouth " of later authors 
is the modern San or Zan, evidently a great town in the time 
of the Ramesside monarchs. (Wilkinson, Ancient Egypt, i. 
p. 449.) Migdol, the Magdolus of Hecatseus (Fr. 282), retains 
its name in the Itinerary of Antonine (p. 10), and appears in 
the position assigned by Moses, on the north-east frontier, 
near Pelusium. Again, the name by which Egypt itself is 
designated, Mizraim (DH^D), has a peculiar geographical 
significancy. The dual form marks the two Egypts — " the 
upper and the lower country " — as they are termed in the 
Inscriptions.* Equally significant is Padan-azzm (D^K"]*!^), 
" the plain Syria " — the country stretching away from the 
foot of the hills (Stanley's Palestine, p. 128, note 1), where 

x The common hieroglyphic signs I layers of earth. (Lepsins, Sur V Al- 
for the whole of Egypt are two I phabet Eieroglyphique, Planche I. 
crowns, two waterplants, or two | Groupe vii. col. C.) 



298 NOTES. [Lect. II 



Harran stood, which was so different a tract from the moun- 
tainous Syria west of the Euphrates. Again, the expression, 
" the entrance of Hamath " (Numb. xiii. 21), shews a con- 
versance with the geography of Upper Palestine, whereof 
this " entrance " is so striking a feature (Stanley, p. 399), and 
with the existence of Hamath at the time, which may be 
proved from the hieratic papyri of the period. (See Cam- 
bridge Essays, 1858, p. 268.) Some further geographical 
points will be touched in note 89. 

The etiological accuracy of the Pentateuch as respects 
Oriental manners and customs generally, has never been 
questioned. The life of the Patriarchs in Canaan, the habits 
of those who dwell in the desert, the chiefs and followers, the 
tents, the wealth in cattle, the " sitting in the door," the 
salutations and obeisances, the constant migrations, the 
quarrels for pasture and water, the marriages with near 
relatives, the drawing of water from the wells by the young 
maidens, the troughs for the camels, the stone on the well's 
mouth, the camels kneeling with their burthens and waiting 
patiently till the troughs are full, the purchase by weight of 
silver, the oaths accompanied by peculiar ceremonies, the ox 
unmuzzled as he treads out the corn, — these and ten thousand 
similar traits are so true to nature and to fact, even at the 
present day (for the East changes but little), that travellers 
universally come back from Syria deeply and abidingly 
impressed with the reality and truthfulness of the Pentateuch 
in all that respects Eastern manners. Rationalism, in order 
to meet in any degree the weight of this argument, is forced 
to betake itself to Egypt, where an artificial system existed 
in the time of Moses which has now completely passed away. 
Von Bohlen maintains that in many respects the author of 
the Pentateuch shews a want of acquaintance with the cus- 
toms of Egypt, e. g. in his mention of eunuchs at the Egyptian 
court (Commentar, p. 360), in his representation of Pharaoh's 
daughter as bathing in the Nile (ibid.), and in his making 
wine a product of Egypt (p. 374). The objections taken are 
not particularly happy. (See Rosellini as quoted by Heng- 
stenberg, JEgypten und Mose, p. 23 ; and Wilkinson, Ancient 
Egyptians, vol. hi. p. 389 ; Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 126.) Were 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 299 

they more important, they would be greatly outweighed by 
the multitude of passages where an intimate acquaintance 
with Ancient Egypt may be discerned. The position of the 
Egyptians with respect to foreigners — their separation from 
them, yet their allowance of them in their country, their 
special hatred of shepherds, the suspicion of strangers from 
Palestine as spies — their internal government, its settled 
character, the power of the King, the influence of the Priests, 
the great works, the employment of foreigners in their con- 
struction, the use of bricks (cf. Herod, ii. 136, with Wilkinson's 
note ad loc), and of bricks with straw in them (Wilkinson, 
1. s. c. and Gamb. Essays, 1858, p. 259), the taskmasters, the 
embalming of dead bodies, the consequent importation of 
spices (Gen. xxxvii. 25), the violent mournings (Herod, ii. 85), 
the dissoluteness of the women (ibid. ii. Ill ; Comb. Essays, 
1858, p. 234), the fighting with horses and chariots (Wil- 
kinson on Herod, ii. 108 ; Camb. Essays, 1858, pp. 240, 241), 
— these are a few out of the many points which might be 
noted marking an intimate knowledge of Egyptian manners 
and customs on the part of the author of the Pentateuch. 
(For a full treatment of the question see the work of Heng- 
stenberg quoted above, which exhibits a very good acquain- 
tance with the works of modern Egyptologers.) 

Note (88), p. 59. 

The uncertainty of geographers as to the sites of these 
cities, and the weak grounds upon which identifications of 
them were attempted, will be seen by reference even to works 
so recent as Winer's Eealworterbuch (1848) and Kitto's Biblical 
Cyclopaedia (1856). Ur was thought by some (Ritter, Kitto) 
to be Orfa or Edessa (so even JBunsen, Egypt, vol. iii. p. 366) : 
which according to others (Winer) was Erech : Calneh was 
supposed to be Ctesiphon, Calah to be Holwan; Ellasar, 
which should have been in Lower Babylonia, was thought to 
be the Larissa of Xenophon, on the middle Tigris ; while 
Accad was either Sacada or Nisibis. Any slight resemblance 
of name — any late authority of a Talmudical or Arabic 
writer — was caught at, in order to fix what the scanty remains 
of primeval geography left completely unsettled. 



300 NOTES. [Lect. II. 

Note ( 89 ), p. 59. 

The following sites seem to have been determined beyond 
all reasonable doubt by the Babylonian and Assyrian In- 
scriptions : 

1. Ur of the Chaldees, at Mugheir, on the right bank of the 
Euphrates, not very far above its junction with the Shat-el-Hie. 
This is the true Chakkea of Scripture and of History, an 
Armenian Chaldaea being a fiction of the Greeks. 

2. Calah at Nimrud, on the left bank of the Tigris, a little 
above its junction with the Greater Zab. (The Halah of 
2 Kings xvii. 6 is a different place.) The province in which 
it stands long continued to be called Calachene (Strab. xvi. 1, 
§ 1 ; Ptol. vi. 1). 

3. Erech at Warka (the Greek ^Op^orj), on the left bank of 
the Euphrates, and at some distance from the river, about 35 
miles N.W. of Ur. 

The following identifications, if not certain, are at least 
highly probable : — 1. Resen with Kileh- Slier ghat, on the right 
bank of the Tigris, not very far from its "junction with the 
Lesser Zab. 2. Accad with a town in Lower Babylonia, 
called Kinzi Accad in the Inscriptions, the site of which is not 
yet determined. 3. Ellasar with Senkereh, 15 miles S. E. of 
Warka, on the same side of the Euphrates. 4. Calneh with 
Niffer, in the same tract with Senkereh and Warka, but much 
nearer Babylon, and about midway between the two streams. 
(See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 313, 447, 592, &c.) 

For a description of the ruins of Ur and Erech, see Mr. 
Loftus's Chaldcea and Sasiana, pp. 128-134, and 162 et seq.; 
for those of Calah, see Mr. Layard's Nineveh and its Remains, 
ch. ii. et seq. ; some account is given of Resen (Kileh- 
Sherghdt) in the same work, ch. xii. ; and of Calneh (Niffer) 
in the same writer's Nineveh and Babylon, ch. xxiv. 

Note (90), p. 60. 

See the account which Mr. Cyril Graham has given of 
his travels in tin's region in the Cambridge Essays for 1858, 
pp. 157-162. Compare Dr. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, 
p. 118. 



Lect. II.] NOTES. 301 

Note (91), p. 60. 

See Commander Lynch's Narrative of the United States 
Expedition to the River Jordan, and also' his Official Report. 
Compare the Journal of the Geographical Society, vol. xviii. 
Articles 8, 9, and 10, and vol. xx. Art. 15. For a summary of 
the facts, see Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp. 276-279, and 
the Essays appended to the first volume of the author's Hero- 
dotus, Essay ix. pp. 548, 549. Commander Lynch gives the 
following account of the impression made upon himself and 
his friends by their careful examination of the Eiver and of 
the Lake in which it ends : — " It is for the learned to com- 
ment on the facts which we have laboriously collected. Upon 
ourselves, the result is a decided one. We entered upon this 
sea, with conflicting opinions. One of the party was sceptical, 
and another, I think, a professed unbeliever of the Mosaic 
account. After twenty-two days' close investigation, if I am 
not mistaken, we were unanimous in the conviction of the truth 
of the Scriptural account of the destruction of the cities of the 
plain." {Narrative, ch. xvii. p. 253.) 



302 NOTES. [Lect. Til. 



LECTURE III. 



Note ( 1 ), p. 63. 
See Konig, Alttestament. Studien, p. 63, et seq. ; Jahn, Min- 
leitung, ii. 1, p. 160 ; and Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 35. 

Note ( 2 ), p. 63. 

See Carpzov, Introductio ad Libros Canonieos Veteris Testa- 
menti, part i. p. 213, who gives the following list of writers by 
whom this view has been taken : " Theodoret, Procopius, 
Gregory the Great, Isidore, Eucherius, among the ancients ; 
among the moderns, Walther, Calovius, Hugo, De Lyra, 
Cajetan, Vatable, Sixtus Sinensis, Sanctius, Serrarius, and 
Cornelius a Lapide." 

Note ( 3 ), p. 63. 

There is no reference to the Book of Joshua as the work 
of Joshua in Scripture. It is first assigned to him in the 
Talmud. The Fathers are divided in opinion as to its 
authorship. Athanasius, for instance, includes it among the 
books "not written by the persons whose names they bear 
and of whom they treat." (Synops. S. S. § 10 ; Opera, vol. ii. 
p. 139, B.) 

Note ( 4 ), p. 63. 

See the summary of the arguments in Keil's Commentar 
fiber das Bueh Josua, Einleitung, § 3, p. xlvii. Keil's conclu- 
sion is, " that the historical references and the peculiarity of 
style completely disprove the supposition that the Book of 
Joshua was written during the captivity ; that they do not 
point to the times of Samuel, or Saul, or David, as the date 
of its composition, but rather to those after Joshua, and 
within a generation of his death. Who then," he asks, " was 
the author ? Most probably one of the elders, who lived for 
some time after Joshua, and who had seen all the works of 
Jehovah which he did for Israel, occupied himself at the close 



Lect. III.] NOTES. 303 

of his life with writing down, partly from recollection, partly 
from contemporary documents and other written notices, the 
things which he had himself witnessed, and thus composed 
the work which we possess under the name of Joshua. y " 
I should be disposed to acquiesce in this view. 

Note ( 5 ), p. 65. 

De Wette boldly denies this. "The book," he says, "nowhere 
contains any separate contemporary documents " (" nicht ein- 
mal einzelne gleichzeitige Bestandtheile enthalt es." Ein- 
leitung, § 169, p. 213.) But Bosenmuller, Jahn, and others, 
seem to have reason on their side when they urge, that the 
accounts of the boundaries of the tribes (xv. 21-62; xviii. 
21-28 ; xix. 1-48), and of the cities of the Levites (xxi. 13-40), 
have all the appearance of such documents. Such a document 
is also, as it seems to me, the list of slaughtered kings in 
chapter xii. (verses 9-24). It appears by ch. xviii. 1-10, and 
xxiv. 26, that such records were in use at the time ; and it is 
a reasonable supposition that they formed the basis upon 
which the author, who quotes them, composed his work. 
Eichhorn observed long ago — " The account of the division of 
the land bears in many places the marks of a protocol, which 
from its very nature never gives at once a brief sketch of the 
whole arrangement, but describes its gradual progress, and 
relates, one after another, all the alterations, improvements, 
and additions, that Were made from time to time." (Mn- 
leitung, vol. iii. p. 365.) Keil remarks recently — " When we 
come to the second part of the book, and observe the things 
of which it particularly treats ; how the history which it con- 
tains of the division of Canaan amongst the tribes is accom- 
panied with full descriptions of the boundaries of the territory 
of each tribe, with catalogues of cities, and so on, we are 
necessarily led to the conclusion, that the writer availed him- 
self of written records, if not of official documents." ( Commentar, 
Einleitung, § 4 ; p. 47, E. T.) Compare Home, Introduction, 
vol. v. pp. 36, 37. 

y In the quotations from Professor volume of Clark's Foreign Theologi- 

Keil's learned and sensible work, I col Libary, New Series, (Edinburgh, 

follow the Translation of Mr. J. 1857). 
Martin, which forms the fourteenth 



304 NOTES. [Lect. III. 

Note ( 6 ), p. 65. 

See Carpzov, Introduetio ad Libros Canonicos Veteris Tes~ 
tamenti, p. 172, et seq. ; and compare the quotation from 
Baba-Bathra in Theodore Parker's Translation of De Wette, 
vol. i. p. 31. See also Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 42. 

Note (7), p. 65. 

Compare Judges i. 21 with 2 Sam. v. 6-9. This passage, it 
is admitted, " seems to belong to the time of David." (Parker's 
Be Wette, vol. i. p. 206.) 

Note (8), p. 66. 

The chronology of the Book of Judges is involved in great 
uncertainty. Several periods are unestimated, as the time 
between the death of Joshua and the first servitude, the 
judgeship of Shamgar, and some portion of the reign of Abi- 
melech. The servitudes added together occupy 111 years, 
and the periods during which the land was at rest or under 
Judges occupy apparently 299 years, or if Samson's judgeship 
be included in the last servitude (Judges xv. 20), 279 years. 
The total is thus 410, or 390. z But in 2 Kings vi. 1, the entire 
period between the Exodus and the Dedication of the Temple 
is declared to have been no more than 480 years. Now if we 
take the lower of the two numbers derivable from Judges, 
and add the sojourn in the wilderness (40 years), the time of 
Joshua's judgeship (say 20 years), the interval between Jo- 
shua's death and the first servitude (say 5 years), the judge- 
ships of Eli (40 years) and of Samuel (more than 20 years, 
1 Sam. vii. 2), the reigns of Saul (40 years), of David (40 
years, and the three years of Solomon's reign before the 
Dedication, we obtain the result of (390 + 40 + 20 + 5 + 40 
+ 20 + 40 + 40 + 3=) 598 years, or more than a century 
beyond the estimate in Kings. It is therefore thought that 
the period of the Judges must be reduced; and the term 
ordinarily assigned to them, exclusive of Eli and Samuel, is 
from 300 to 350 years. (See the marginal dates in the 

z With this nearly agrees St. Paul's (the time of Eli's judgeship)+20 (a 

estimate of 450 years from the divi- not improbable estimate for the time 

sion of the land by lot to Samuel the between the death of Moses and the 

prophet (Acts xiii. 20) ; for 390+40 1st servitude) = 450 years. 



Lect. III.] NOTES. 305 

English Bible, and compare Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. i. 
p. 313, note n .) M. Bunsen, with his usual boldness, reduces 
the time still further, making the 'period from the death of 
Joshua to that of Samson no more than 173 years. (See his 
Egypt, vol. iii. p. 288.) This is effected by giving Othniel and 
Deborah 8 years each instead of 40, by reducing the time 
between the second and third servitudes from 80 years to 7, 
by shortening Gideon's presidency from 40 years to 10, and 
by regarding the line of Judges from Tola to Abdon as double, 
whereby 94 years are compressed into 48 ! If chronology be 
treated in this spirit, it is to be feared that it will shortly 
come to be regarded pretty nearly in the same light as the 
etymology of the last century, in which, it was said, " Les 
voyelles ne valoient rien, et les consonants peu de chose." 

Note ( 9 ), p. 67. 

Jahn, Mnleitung, § 46, vol. ii. p. 232 et seq. Herbst, Mn- 
leitung, vol. ii. p. 139 et seq. ; Graf, Dissertatio de Librorum 
Samuelis et Begum Compositione ; &c. A good refutation of 
Jahn's theory will be found in Kitto's Cyclopcedia, in the 
article on the ' Books of Samuel ' (vol. ii. p. 685). 

Note (10), p. 67. 

See Carpzov, Introductio, &c. p. 213. Modern critics mostly 
take the view that the Books of Samuel were merely founded 
on these documents. (See Havernick, Einleitung, § 161 ; 
Stuart, History of the Old Testament Canon, § 6, p. 134 ; Kev. 
J. Eadie in Kitto's Cyclopcedia, vol. ii. p. 684 ; &c.) Home, 
however, with Carpzov (p. 215) and Spanheim (Opera, vol. i. 
p. 367), holds to the ancient view. (See his Introduction, 
vol. v. p. 48.) The difference between the two views is 
not great. 

Note ( 11 ), p. 68. 

Ahijah the Shilonite is mentioned as a contemporary of 
Solomon in 1 Kings, xi. 29. As the visions of Iddo the seer 
were "against Jeroboam the son of Nebat," he must have 
been, at the latest, contemporary with Solomon's successor. 

x 



306 NOTES. [Lf.ct. Ill; 

Note (12), p. 69. 

De Wette says correctly — "The history of David, con- 
tained in 1 Chron. x.-xxix., is in parts entirely consistent 
with that in the books of Samnel; but it is distinguished 
from that by having several accounts peculiar to itself, and 
especially by its Levitical accounts." (Einleitung, § 188, 
p. 241 ; vol. ii. p. 261, of Parker's Translation.) Such accounts 
are particularly the following — 1. The lists of those who joined 
David at Ziklag and at Hebron (ch. xii.). 2. David's instruc- 
tions to Solomon and the princes with regard to the temple 
(ch. xxii. and ch. xxviii.). 3. His offerings and those of the 
people (ch. xxix. 1-9). 4. His thanksgiving, and prayer (ibid. 
10-19). 5. His great sacrifice and installing of Solomon as 
king for the second time (ibid. 20-25). And 6. The lists of 
the Levites, priests, singers, porters, captains, &c. as made 
out or appointed by David (chs. xxii.-xxvii.). The remainder 
of the first book of Chronicles follows Samuel closely, in most 
passages almost to the letter ; e. g. 

1 Chron. x. 1-10. 1 Sam. xxxi. 1-10. 

Now the Philistines fought Now the Philistines fought 
against Israel ; and the men of against Israel : and the men of 
Israel fled from before the Phi- Israel fled from before the Phi- 
listines, and fell down slain in listines, and fell down slain in 
mount Gilboa. And the Philis- mount Gilboa. And the Phi- 
tines followed hard after Saul, listines followed hard upon Saul 
and after his sons ; and the Phi- and upon his sons ; and the Phi- 
listines slew Jonathan, and listines slew Jonathan, and 
Abinadab, and Malchi-shua, the Abinadab, and Melchi-shua, 
sons of Saul. And the battle Saul's sons. And the battle 
went sore against Saul, and the went sore against Saul, and the 
archers hit him., and he was archers hit him ; and he was 
wounded of the archers, &c. sore wounded of the archers, &c. 
&c. &c. 

Note ( 13 ), p. 69. 

That the seventy-eighth Psalm is a work of David's time 
is apparent from its bringing the history down to him, and 
then closing abruptly. The title "Maschil of Asaph," is 
an external confirmation of this view. Even De Wette 
appears to allow that Asaph was the author. [Einleitung, 
§ 271, p. 366.) In this Psalm are mentioned the following 



Lect. III.] NOTES. 307 

historical facts: — (1.) The giving of the law by Jehovah 
(verse 5) ; (2.) the command that it should be made known 
by fathers to their children (verses 5, 6 ; compare Deut. iv. 
9, &c.) ; (3.) the miracles wrought in Egypt (verse 12) ; 
(4.) the turning of the rivers, and (5.) other waters, into 
blood (verse 44) ; (6.) the plague of flies (v. 45) ; (7.) of 
frogs (ib.) ; (8.) of locusts (v. 46) ; (9.) of hail (v. 47) ; 
(10.) the destruction by the hail of cattle as well as trees 
(v. 48) ; (11.) the death of the first-born (v. 51) ; (12.) the 
employment of angels in this destruction (v. 49) ; (13.) the 
divine leading of the Israelites out of Egypt (v. 52) ; (14.) 
the pillar of cloud (15.) by day (v. 14) ; (16.) the pillar of 
fire (17.) by night (ibid.) ; (18.) the division of the Ked Sea 
(v. 13) ; (19.) the standing of the water in a heap (ibid. ; 
compare Ex. xv. 8) ; (20.) the divine guidance of the 
Israelites through the sea (v. 53) ; (21.) the overwhelming 
of the Egyptians (ib.) ; (22.) the frequent murmuring in the 
wilderness (verses 17-20) ; (23.) the bringing forth of water 
from the rock (v. 15) ; (24.) in vast abundance (v. 16) ; (25.) 
the asking for meat (v. 18) ; (26.) the kindling of a fire 
against the people (v. 21 ; compare Numb. xi. 1.) ; (27.) the 
manna (v. 24) ; (28.) its coming down from heaven (v. 23 ; 
compare Ex. xvi. 4) ; (29.) the ampleness of the supply (v. 25) ; 
(30.) the giving of quails (v. 27) ; (31.) which were brought 
by a wind (v. 26 ; comp. Numb. xi. 30) ; (32.) and let fall 
" round about their habitation " (v. 28) ; comp. Numb. xi. 
31) ; (33.) the destructive plague which followed (v. 31) ; 
(34.) " while the meat was yet in their mouths " (v. 30 ; 
comp. Numb. xi. 33) ; (35.) the various further provocations 
(vv. 32, 37, &c.) ; (36.) the punishment by " consuming their 
days " in the wilderness (v. 33) ; (37.) the mercy of God in 
" not stirring up all his wrath " (v. 38) ; (38.) the frequent 
repentances after punishment, and frequent relapses (vv. 
34-42) ; (39.) the divine conduct to the border of the Holy 
Land (v. 54) ; (40.) the casting out of the Heathen before 
them (v. 55) ; (41.) the division of the inheritances (ib.) ; 
(42.) the cowardice of Ephraim (v. 9 ; compare Josh. xvi. 10 ; 
Judges i. 29) ; (43.) the backsliding and idolatry in Canaan 
(vv. 56-58) ; (44.) the placing of the tabernacle at Shiloh 

x2 



308 NOTES. [Lect. III. 

(v. 60) ; (45.) its capture (v. 61) ; (46.) the great slaughter 
at the same time (v. 62) ; (47.) the slaughter of priests in 
the battle (v. 64) ; (48.) the punishment of the captors by 
emerods (v. 66) ; (49.) the choice of the territory of Judah 
for the final resting-place of the tabernacle (v. 68) ; (50.) the 
choice of Mount Zion as the place where it should be set up 
(ib.) ; (51.) the selection of David to be king (v. 70) ; (52.) 
his being taken " from the sheep-folds " (ib.) ; and (53.) the 
integrity and excellence of his rule (v. 72.) 

Note ( 14 ), p. 70. 
Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp. 132, 133. 

Note (15), p. 70. 

M. Bunsen supposes that Assyria, from the commence- 
ment of its independence in b. c. 1273, was not only a powerful 
kingdom, but a great empire, holding Syria, Palestine, and 
even occasionally Egypt in subjection {Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 269, 
289, &c.) But this view rests entirely upon Ctesias, a writer 
(as M. Bunsen confesses a ) of very low authority ; or rather it 
rests upon an odd jumble between the facts (?) of Ctesias and 
the dates of Herodotus and Berosus. Nothing is more plain 
from the Assyrian inscriptions, the authority of which M. 
Bunsen admits, b than the gradual rise of Assyria to power 
during the 520 (526) years assigned by Herodotus to the 
Empire. Tiglath-Pileser I., whose date is fixed, with a near 
approach to certainty, in the latter part of the eleventh 
century b. c, gives a list of his four ancestors and predecessors 
which must reach back at least to b. c. 1200, wherein he calls 
the first of them " the king who first organised the country 
of Assyria;" the second and third, kings who were "esta- 
blished in the government of Assyria ; " and the fourth, his 
father, " the subduer of foreign countries ; " while he calls 
himself "the illustrious prince who has pursued after the 
enemies of Asshur and has subjugated all the earth." Yet 
his campaigns are only in the Kurdish mountains, in Armenia, 
Cappadocia, and upper Syria about Carchemish. He does 
not penetrate to Hamath, to Phoenicia, or to Damascus, much 

« Egypt, vol. iii. p. 433. b Ibid. p. 436. 



Lect. III.] NOTES. 309 

less to Palestine; while he constantly declares that he is 
engaged with tribes and countries which none of the Assyrian 
kings had ever before reached. (See the Great Inscription, 
published by the Eoyal Asiatic Society, 6 pp. 22, 24, 34, 
42, &c.) 

Note ( 16 ), p. 71. 

See Wilkinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 374-376. 
Compare Bunsen, Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 210, 211, 219-221, &c. 

Note (17), p. 71. 

See above, note 15. Chushan-Kishathaim is placed by 
most biblical chronologists between b. c. 1400 and b. c. 1350. 
M. Bunsen puts him a century later. {Egypt, vol. iii. p. 272.) 
Even according to this latter view, he preceded Tiglath- 
Pileser I. by above a century. 

It is quite a gratuitous supposition of M. Bunsen's that 
Chushan-Kishathaim was " a Mesopotamian satrap " (1. s. c.) 
— " the Assyrian satrap of Mesopotamia " (p. 289). Scripture 
calls him "king;" and besides, the cuneiform monuments 
make it perfectly clear that Assyria did not extend her 
dominion to Aram-Naharaim (the Aramaic portion of Meso- 
potamia, or the country between the Khabour and the 
Euphrates), till the middle of the 12th century. M. Bunsen 
says, "there can never have been an empire in Eastern Syria 
coexistent with Assyria and Babylonia " (p. 293). Why can 
there not ? If the Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms of the 
early period be rightly apprehended, there is no more diffi- 
culty in supposing a powerful Aramaean state in Western 
Mesopotamia, than in imagining the country divided up, as we 
must otherwise regard it, among a number of petty princi- 
palities. Chushan-Rishathaim, however, it is to be observed, 
reigned probably before the Assyrian independence was esta- 
blished. 

Note ( 18 ), p. 72. 

Moses says—" Is (i. e. Joshua) cum Chananaeos deleret, 
nonnulli Agram profugerunt, et navigiis Tharsin petiere ; id 

c Printed by J. W. Parker, West Strand, London, 1857. 



310 NOTES. [Lect. Ill, 

quod ex inscriptione patet, quae in Africa columnis insculpta 
extat ad hanc usque rnemoriam, quae vere talis est—* A Joshua 
latrone profugi nos praefecti Chananaeorimi, venemus hie 
habitatum.' " Hist. Armen. i. 18. 

Note ( 19 ), p. 72. 

Procopius expresses himself as follows. Haying mentioned 
Tigisis (Tangiers), a city of Numidia, he proceeds— evQa <tttj~ 
Xai Bvo ifc \t6(ov Xevicwv nreiroi^yikvai ay%i fcpijvr)<; elal 
rr]s /bLeydXrjs, ypdyb\xara ^oivlklkcl iy/ce/coXa/jL/uLeva e^ovaat, 
rf) <£>oovU(ov yX(oacrrj Xeyovra wSe" f H/xet9 ia/juev oi (j>vyovT€<; 
airo TrpoacoTTOV 'Yrjcrov rod Xyarov Naur}. (De Bello VandalicO) 
ii. 10). This is clearly the language of an eye-witness. 
Procopius, it must be remembered, had accompanied Belisarius 
to Africa. 

Note (20), p. 72. 

Suidas ad voc. Itavaav. Kal elcri ^XP L v ^ v at Totavrac 
TrXcuces ev rfj NovfuSta, irepikypvaai ovtw 'H/uels eafiev Xava- 
valoc, oi/? iSlcofjev 'I^o-oO? 6 Xtjctttj^. 

Note ( 21 ), p. 72. 

Keil, Commentar ilber d. Bueh Josua, Einleitnng, § 4, p. Ii. ; 
p. 51, E. T. 

Note (22), p. 73. 

Mr. Kenrick, who admits the existence of an inscription 
supposed to have the meaning given to it by the writers 
above quoted, decides that the inscription must have been 
mistranslated. (Phoenicia, p. 68.) He remarks that the ex- 
planations of the hieroglyphical and cuneiform inscriptions 
which were furnished by those who professed to understand 
them to the inquisitive Greeks, read us a lesson of distrust ; 
and suggests that a monument of the time of Joshua would 
have been unintelligble even to learned archaeologists in the 
days of Justinian. But the monument may have been 
national and genuine without its dating from within a thou- 
sand years of the time of Joshua ; and if the cuneiform and 
hieroglyphical inscriptions were not accurately rendered to 
the Greeks, it was less through ignorance than through 
malice that they were perverted. In this case the trans- 



Lect. 1IJ.] NOTES 311 

lation given by the natives is clearly an honest one ; and its 
peculiarities seem to me in its favour. The Arainaism, 
* dirb iTpocrooTrov" is admitted to be " a plausible argument for 
the correctness of the interpretation" (Kenrick, 1. s. c). 
The form of the inscription, in which certain persons, not 
named or described, speak in the first person plural, which is 
said to be " wholly unlike that of genuine lapidary docu- 
ments " (Kenrick, p. 67), is no doubt unusual ; but as 
certainly it is not impossible. The early cuneiform docu- 
ments are commonly in the first person. And if the 
inscription were set up in a public place in Tingis, it would 
be sufficiently evident that by " we " was meant the people 
of the city. Besides, we are not sure that this was the whole 
of the inscription. The authors who report it are only 
concerned with a particular passage. There may have been a 
context, which would have taken away all appearance of 
harshness and abruptness from the record. 

Note (23), p. 73. 

Very few Phoenician inscriptions have been found in 
Africa of a later date than the age of Augustus. (See 
Gesenius's Monumenta Scripturce Linguceque Phoenicia?, pp. 13, 
313-328.) The Latin language appears to have by that 
time almost entirely superseded the Carthaginian for all 
public purposes. 

Note (24), p. 73. 

Herod, ii. 142. 'Ey tolvvv tovto) tg> XP° V( P T€T p ( ^ fC ^ e\eyov 
i% rjOecov rbv rfkiov avareiXai' evOa re vvv /cara^verai, evOevrev 
8t? avcLTelXai, teal hvOev vvv avareXXei, evOavra St? Karahvvat. 

Note (25), p. 73. 

"When Herodotus, the father of profane history, tells 
us, from the priests of Egypt, that their traditions had 
informed them, that in very remote ages the sun had four 
times departed from his regular course, having twice set 
where he ought to have risen, and twice risen where he ought 
to have set, — it is impossible to read this most singular 
tradition without recollecting the narrative in the book of 
Joshua which relates, that the sun stood still in the midst 



312 NOTES. [Lect. III. 

of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day ; ' 
and the fact related in the history of Hezekiah, ' that the 
sun went back ten degrees on the dial of Ahaz.' " (Home, 
Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of Holy 
Scripture, vol. i. p. 176. Compare Goguet, Origines Legum 
et Artium, vol. iii. p. 300.) 

Note ( 26 ), p. 74. 

Three other explanations of the narrative in Joshua have 
been suggested. Grotius, Isaac Peyrerius, Spinoza, and 
others, conjecture that a miracle was wrought, but not an 
astronomical one. Divine power caused, they think, an 
extraordinary refraction of the sun's rays, by which it con- 
tinued to light up the field of battle long after its disc had 
sunk below the horizon. Michaelis, Schultz, Hess, and 
Da the, believe that nothing strange took place with regard 
to the sun, but that it continued to lighten all night, in 
consequence of which the Israelites were able to continue 
the pursuit. Finally, Keil has suggested that nothing 
marvellous or out of the common course is intended in 
the narrative. The words of Joshua, " Sun, stand thou 
still" &c. (or "Sun, wait thou," as he translates it), were, 
he thinks, spoken in the morning ; and the prayer was 
simply that the sun might not set till the people had avenged 
themselves upon their enemies. The whole passage, from 
verse 12 to verse 15 inclusive, he considers to be quoted 
from the poem known as " the book of Jasher ; " and 
therefore he feels justified in explaining its language 
poetically. " If we had had before us simple prose or the 
words of the historian himself," it would have been neces- 
sary to admit that the day was miraculously lengthened, 
Bat the words of a poet must be understood poetically. 
He remarks, that there is no reference to the miracle in 
the rest of Scripture (for he fairly enough questions whe- 
ther Hab. iii. 11 is such a reference) — a strange silence, if 
so great a miracle as that commonly understood at the 
present day was really wrought on the occasion. These 
views on the part of a learned Hebraist, and of one who 
has no prejudice against miracles, seem to deserve atten- 



Lect. III.] NOTES. 313 

tion. (See Keil's Commentar uber d. Buck Josua, ch. x. 
pp. 177-193 ; pp. 251-209, E. T.) 

Note (27), p. 75. 

Ap. Euseb. Prcep. Mv, ix. 30. Merd Be ravra irpo^nqv 
yevecrOcu %ajJbovrfK. EZto. tt) tov ©eoO fiovXtfaei, virb l^afjuovrfk 
^aovXov ftacriXea alpeOrjvat, dp^avra Be err) kcl reXevrrjaat. 
Etra Aa/31S rbv rovrov vibv Bwaarevaai, ov Karaarpe^raaOat 
Xvpow; tot)? irapd rbv Rvcfrpdrrjv ooKovvras rrorafibv, 
Kal rrjv K.o/LL/jLayr)vr)V, /ecu tov<; ev TaXaBrjvfj ' 'Aaavplovs Kal 
<&oiviKa<z. 

Note (28), p. 75. 

Fragmenta Hist. Gf-rcec. vol. iii. pp. 373, 374, Fr. 31 : Merd 
Be ravra ttoXXg) Xpova> varepov ra>v e<y%copicov rt$, "ABaBo? 
ovo/jua, rrXelov lo-yycras-, Aa/jbacrKov re ical rrj<; aXXrjs Xvplas, e^co 
<&oivlK7]<;, eftaaiXevcre. UoXefiov Be i^eveyKas irpbs AavlBrjv 
ftaaiXea rr}$ 'lovBalas teal iroXXal^ iidyais tcpiOeh, vardrrj rfj 
irapd rbv ^v(j)pdr7]v, ev fj r^rraro, dpiaro^ eBotjev elvai fiaaiXewv 
pcofjiT) Kal dvBpela. It may be said that Nicolas, being the 
friend of Herod the Great, would have ready access to the 
sacred books of the Jews, and may have drawn his narrative 
thence. But the Fragments of Nicolas do not indicate this. 
In the very few places where he touches ancient Jewish 
history, it is always in connexion with his own country, and 
from a Damascene point of view. It is also to be remarked, 
that while he omits main features of the Jewish narrative, as 
the fact that the Syrians took part in the war against David 
as allies of the king of Zobah, he adds features not contained 
in that narrative ; as the name of the Syrian king, the extent 
of his dominions, and the occurrence of several battles before 
the last disaster. These points are quite compatible with the 
Jewish narrative, but they could not be drawn from it. 

Note ( 29 ), p. 76. 

Eupolemus said, in continuation of the passage above 
quoted — %rparevaai Be avrbv Kaleirl 'IBov/ubalov<z, Kal 'AyLt- 
/juavlras, Kal Mcoaftlras, Kal 'Irovpalov?, Kal Naftaraiovs, 
Kal Na/38a/ou?. (Euseb. Prcep. Ev. 1. s. c.) 



31 ^ . NOTES. [Le.ct.I1E. 

Note (30), p. 76. 
See Dr. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp. 262-264. 

Note ( 31 ), p. 76. 

See Heeren's Asiatic Nations, vol. ii. pp. 119-126 ; and 
Kenrick's Phoenicia, pp. 201-205. 

Note (32), p. 77. 

The superior antiquity and preeminence in early times of 
Sidon over Tyre has been disputed. Niebuhr in his Lectures 
( Vortrdge ilber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 94 ; p. 78, E. T.) 
speaks of it as doubtful. And the writer of the article on 
Phoenicia, in Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman 
Geography, endeavours to prove the contrary (vol. ii. p. 609). 
But his arguments do not appear to me very cogent. It is 
easy to understand how Tyre, which in later times completely 
eclipsed her neighbour, should have assertors of her superior 
antiquity in the days of her glory, without supposing that her 
claim was founded in justice ; but it is inexplicable that Sidon 
should in her lowest depression have succeeded in maintaining 
her claim against Tyre, unless there had been truth on her 
side. Mr. Kenrick appears to me to decide the controversy 
aright, when he concludes, that " Tyre was probably at first 
only a dependency of Sidon." (See his Phoenicia, pp. 340- 
342.) 

There is one important argument in favour of the early 
pre-eminence of Sidon, which is not noticed either by Mr. 
Kenrick, or the writer in Smith's Dictionary. Sidon takes 
precedence of Tyre in the early Egyptian lists. (See M. Bun- 
sen's Egypt, vol. iii. p. 214 ; and Cambridge Essays for 1858, 
Art. vi. p. 257.) 

Note ( 33 ), p. 77. 

Homer makes no mention at all of Tyre or the Tyrians, 
while he speaks of Sidon and the Sidonians repeatedly. (See 
Horn. II. vii. 289, 290, xxiii. 741-744; Od. iv. 618, xv. 117, 
and 425.) He also in one passage uses " Sidonia " as the 
name of Phoenicia in general. d It has been suggested that he 

d Oi 5' is tLihovirjV zvvaiop.£vr)v dvajSauTes 

J/ i2i^oj/r' ? avr ap cyoo \nroixr)V a.Ka^]p.(vos rjrop.- — Od. xiii. 285-286. 



Lect. III.] NOTES. 315 

preferred " Sidon " and " Sidonian " to " Tyre " and « Tyrian," 
because the words are more " sonorous." (See Diet, of Greek 
and Roman Geography, 1. s. c.) But he would scarcely on 
that account have so determinedly excluded Tyre, the more 
important city of the two at the time when he wrote, from all 
mention in either of his poems. 

Note (34), p. 77. 
Strabo in one place (xvi. 2, § 22) speaks somewhat ob- 
scurely on the subject; but in another (i. 2, § 33) he dis- 
tinctly calls Sidon the mother-city (rrjv ^Tpoiro'Kiv) of all 
Phoenicia. 

Note (35), p. 77. 
Justin says, " Tyriorum gens condita a Phoenicibus fuit, qui 
terra? motu vexati, relicto patriae solo, Assyrium stagnum 
primo, mox mari proximum littus incoluerunt, condita ibi 
urbe, quam a piscium ubertate Sidona appellaverunt :. nam 
piscem Phoenices Sidon vocant. Post multos deinde annos a 
rege Ascaloniorum expugnati, navibus appulsi Tyron urbem 
ante annum Trojanae cladis condiderunt." (Historic, xviii. 3.) 
Tyre is here made an actual colony from Sidon. Compare 
Isaiah xxiii. 12, where Tyre is addressed as " daughter of 
Sidon." 

Note ( 36 ), p. 77. 
Josephus calls Dius — avSpa irepl ttjv Qoivikik^v laropiav 
afcpiftr) yeyovevai ireincnevjjbevov. {Contra Apion. i. 17.) He 
probably lived soon after the time of Alexander. 

Note ( 37 ), p. 77. 

Josephus distinctly states that Menander drew his Phoe- 
nician history from native sources. See his treatise, Contra 
Apion. i. 18 : Teypafa Be ovrog t<x? £<j> i/cdarov t&v /3a<rc- 
\k(ov irpd^ei^ irapa Tol^ (/ ^KXr]ai ical (3apftdpoi<$ yevojuuevas ifc 
T(bv Trap* i/celvoLs i7ri%coplcov ypa/m/jbdrcov cnrovBd- 
aas tt)v laroplav fiaOelv. Compare Ant. Jud. ix. 14. 

Dius and Menander appear to have been silent about Sidon, 
and to have made their Phoenician histories little more than 
histories of Tyre. See their Fragments in C. Miiller's Fragm* 
Hist. Gr. vol. iv. pp. 398 and 445-447. 



316 NOTES. [Lect. III. 

Note ( 38 ), p. 77. 
The preeminence of Tyre over the other Phoenician cities 
from the time of David to the close of Phoenician history, has 
never, I believe, been denied. It is indicated in Scripture by 
the uniform tenor of the prophecies (Is. xxiii. 1-18 ; Jer. xxv- 
22, xlvii. 4 ; Ez. xxvi.-xxviii. &c.) ; on the monuments by the 
precedency assigned to Tyre in the lists of Phoenician towns 
(Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 356 ; Sir H. Eawlinson's 
Commentary on the Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, 
p. 30 ; compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 470) ; and 
in profane history by the constant mention which is made of 
Tyre, and the few and scattered notices of Sidon which occur 
during this period. The only remarkable exception to this 
consensus is Herodotus, who seems impressed with the super- 
iority of Sidon. (See book vii. ch. 98, where the Sidonian 
king is given the post of honour ; and chaps. 44, 96, 99, 
100, &c, where the Sidonian ships are represented as ex- 
celling all the rest.) Perhaps he is unconsciously biassed by 
his Homeric learning; or perhaps Sidon did temporarily 
recover the pre-eminence from about b. c. 580 to B. c. 480, 
in consequence of Nebuchadnezzar's siege and destruction of 
Tyre. Tyre however was manifestly once more the leading 
city at the time of the invasion of Alexander. (Arrian, Hxped. 
Alex. ii. 15 et seq.) 

Note ( 39 ), p. 78. 

See Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 58. 

Note (40), p. 78. 

A " Hiram, king of Tyre," is mentioned in an inscription 

of Tiglath-Pileser II. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. 

p. 470.) 

Note (41), p. .78. 

" Mapen, the son of Sirom " (or Hirom), was king of Tyre 
at the time of Xerxes' expedition against Greece (Herodoi 
vii. 98). The name also occurs among the Phoenicians of 
Cyprus (ib. v. 104). 

Note ( 42 ), p. 79. 

The following is the passage of Menander concerning 
Hiram which Josephus has preserved to us : — TeXevrijcrav- 



Lect, III.] NOTES. 317 

to? Be 'Kf3ij3akov BteBe^aTO ttjv /SaatXelav 6 vlbs clvtov E lp co- 
puo<$, o? yStcocra? err) irevr^fcovra rpta i^aaiXevaev eTw rpidfcovra 
reaaapa. Ovros e^coae tov evpv^copov, tov re y^pvaovv tclova 
tov iv tols tov Ato? dveOw/cev, en re vXvv ^vXcov direXOcov 
e/co^frev dirb tov Xeyopevov opov<? AijBdvov, fceBpLva 
%vXa et? ra? twv lepoiv o~Teya<z, KaOeXd>v re tcl dp^ala lepd 
kcllvovs (pfcoBopbwo-e, to t€ tov 'Jlpa/cXeovs fcal t?}? ' ' KcrTapTn^ 
T&puevo? dviepevcrev, fcal to puev tov ^pa/cXeovs rrpaiTov iiroirj 
craTO iv t£> UepiTia) pbrjvl, e%Ta to t?)? 'Ao-rapr??? oiroTe Tltvols 
iirecTTpaTevo-e pur) ottoBlBovq-i tovs (popovs, ot>? /cat viroTa^a^ 
eavTG) irdXiv dveaTpe^ev. 'E7rl tovtov Be rt? rjv * KftBrjpbovos 
7rat? vecoTepos, 09 evUa tcl tt poftXr) puciTa, a iireTaaae Xo- 
Xofjbcov 6 'lepoaoXv pucov fiaaiXeix;. (Contra Apion. i. 18.) 

Note ( 43 ), p. 79. 

The words of Dius, as reported by Josephus, are — 'A/3t- 
fidXov TeXevT-rjcravTos 6 u/o? avTov 'EcpcD/io? iftacriXevarev. 
Outo? tcl 77-po? dvctToXas piepr) t>}? 7roXeft)9 nrpoo-e^wae, fcal jjuel- 
%ov to do-TV ireTToirjice, teal tov ^OXvpbiriov Ato? to lepbv icaO* 
eavTo bv iv vr/aa), ^(ocra^ tov pueTa^v tottov, o-vvrj-^e Ty iroXeL, 
/col xpvcrois dvaOrjpLaaiv i/cocrpLrjo-ev' dvafids Be el<$ tov Al- 
fiavov vXoto puncre 7rpb<; ttjv tcov vatov /caTcicr/cevTjv. Tov 
Be TVpavvovvTa 'lepocroXvpLcov SoXopicova irepbyjrac cjyao-l 
7rpo? tov T^ipcopLov alvlypLCLTa, KOi irap clvtov Xa(3elv 
dtjiovv, tov Be pur) BvvnOevTa Bicucplvai t&> Xvctclvtl %pr)pbaTa 
drrroTiveiv. 'OpuoXoyrjaavTa Be tov JZtpoopLov fcal pur] BvvnOevTa 
Xvcrcu tcl aivly pleura iroXXa tmv y^pnpLaTCov et? to iiri^qpaov 
dvaXcoaao. Etra Brj ''AjBBrjpbovov Tiva Tvpcov dvBpa tcl TrpoTe- 
OevTa Xvaai, /cat clvtov aXXa irpoftaXelv* a purj XvaavTa 
tov XoXopuwva ttoXXci to3 E/|0ft)yL6&) 7T/oocra7roT6crat %pr)pLaTa, 
(Contra Apion. i. 17.) 

Note ( 44 ), p. 79. 

See Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. p. 386 : Wlpapibs ttjv eavTov 
OvyciTepa ^aXopbwvi BiBcoac. . . w? $v)cri MevavBpo? 6 UepyapLTj- 
yo?. Compare Tatian, Adversos Groscos, 37, p. 273. Mr. 
Kenrick thinks this was a mere " popular tradition," to which 
the intimate friendship between the two kings gave rise. He 
argues that Hiram would not have married his daughter to 



318 



NOTES. 



[Lect. III. 



Solomon, " since she could only have been a secondary wife," 
and he farther urges the silence of Scripture. (See his 
Phoenicia, p. 356.) The latter is always a weak ground, and 
in the present instance is not fully sustained, since among 
Solomon's secondary wives are mentioned "Sidonian (i.e. 
Phoenician) princesses." The force of the former argument 
will depend on the relative greatness which we assign to the 
two princes. I should be inclined to regard the power of 
Solomon as greater, and that of Hiram as less, than Mr. 
Kenrick imagines. 

Note ( 45 ), p. 80. 

Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 375 ; Bunsen, 
Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 206, 207. 

Note (46), p. 80. 

See Euseb. Prosp. Mv. ix. 31-34. The passage is also given 
among the Fragments of Polyhistor, in Miiller's Fragment a 
Ffistoricorum G-rcecorum, vol. iii. pp. 225, 226, Fr. 18. 

Note ( 47 ), p. 80. 

Egyptian chronology has been made out with tolerable cer- 
tainty from the Apis stela? discovered by M. Mariette, as far 
as the accession of Tirhakah, which appears to have been in 
B. c. 690. (Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. 
pp. 380, 381.) Manetho's dynasties place between Tirhakah 
and the commencement of the 22nd dynasty a space of about 
275 years. This would give b. c. 965 as the date of Shishak's 
(or Sesonchis') accession. Assuming from the Canon of 
Ptolemy B. c. 651 as the date of Evil-Merodach's accession, 
we obtain, by following the line of the kings of Judah, b. c. 
976 for the accession of Kehoboam, and B. c. 1016 for that of 
Solomon. This is as near an agreement as we could reason- 
ably expect, between two chronologies both of which are 
somewhat uncertain. e 

e The dates furnished by the Apis 
stelce prove that Manetho's lists, as 
we have them, are not wholly to 
be depended on. In the Scripture 
Chronology of the time, one element 
of doubt is furnished by the differ- 



ence which sometimes exists between 
the LXX and the Hebrew text. An- 
other arises from the want of exact 
agreement between the chronology 
of the Israelite and of the Jewish 
kings. 






Lect. III.] NOTES. 319 

Note (48), p. 80. 

Sesoncliis is the form used by Africanus, Sesonchosis that 
adopted by Eusebius. (See the Fragments of Manetlio, col- 
lected by Mons. C. Miiller, in his Fragmenta Hist. Gr. vol. ii. 
p. 590, Frs. 60 and 61.) 

Note ( 49 ), p. 80. 

See Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 377, 
and Bunsen, Egypt, vol. hi. p. 241. 

The 2-1 st, or first Tanite dynasty, belonged to the sacer- 
dotal caste, and in various respects bore a peculiar character. 
With Sheshonk, the first king of the 22nd, or first Bubastite, 
dynasty, we have a return to the old character of Egyptian 
monarchs. (Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. 
pp. 375, 376 ; Bunsen, Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 220, 221, and 241.) 

Note ( 50 ), p. 81. 
See Euseb. Prcep. Ev. ix. 34. 

Note (51), p. 81. 

Ibid. 1. s. c. ©e6(/>tA,o? Be (prjcn tov irepUKjevaavTci y^pvaov 
tov SoXoficova r<p Tvplav fiaaiXel irk^^af tov Se el/cova rr)<; 
6v<yaTpb$ t,(pov oXoacofJuarov Karaafcevacrai,, /cat eXvrpov tg3 dv- 
Bpiavri tov xpvcrovv /clova irepiQelvai. 

Note ( 52 ), p. 82. 
See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. Essay vii. pp. 490, 491. 
Compare Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 634, 635. 

Note ( 53 ), p. 83. 

Nineveh and Babylon, ch. xxvi. pp. 650 and 655. For an 
account of the structures at Susa and Persepolis, see Mr. 
Loftus's Chaldcea and Susiana, ch. xxviii. pp. 364-380, and 
Mr. Fergusson's elaborate work, The Palaces of Nineveh re- 
stored, pp. 95-190. 

Note ( 54 ), p. 83. 

Fergusson's Palaces of Nineveh restored, pp. 272-276 ; com- 
pare Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, ch. xxvi. pp. 649, 650. 



S20 NOTES. [Lect. III. 

Note ( 55 ), p. 84. 

Ker Porter says — " The total height of each column is 
60 feet; the circumference of the shaft is sixteen ; the length 
from the capital to the tor, forty-four feet." {Travels, vol. i. 
p. 633.) In another part of the ruins, he measured two pil- 
lars, the total height of which, including capital and tor, was 
forty-jive feet. (Ibid. p. 590.) The measurements adopted by 
Mr. Fergusson are, for the palace of Darius, 20 feet ; for the 
hall of the Hundred Columns, 25 feet ; for the Propylseum 
of Xerxes, 46 feet, 9 inches ; and for the Hall of Xerxes, 
64 feet. (The Palaces of Nineveh restored, pp. 108, 125, 158, 
and 177.) 

Note (56), p. 84. 

See Kugler's Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, p. 81. 

Note ( 57 ), p. 84. 
Even Mr. Layard, while admitting that "some of the 
Assyrian sphinxes may have been overlaid with gold, like the 
cherubim in Solomon's temple," adds in a note, " I cannot, 
however, but express my conviction, that much of the metal 
called gold both in the sacred writings and in profane authors 
of antiquity, was really copper, the orichalchum of the Greeks, 
such as was used in the bowls and plates discovered at Nim. 
roud." (Nineveh and Babylon, p. 652.) But metal of this 
slight value would hardly have been torn with violence from 
a sacred building, as the plating appears to have been from 
the fourth stage of the Birs Nimrud. It is further to be 
remarked, that in the classical accounts the golden beams &c. 
are distinctly said to have been far less numerous than the 
silver ones. Polybius says of the palace at Ecbatana — ovarii 
yap rr)<; %v\la<; cardans (ceSplvws /cal KvirapiTTivns, ovhefxlav 
avrcov yeyv pbvwaOai crvvefiaivev, aXka koI tovs Sokovs koX ra 
cfyarvco/^ara, teal rovs tciovas tov$ iv rat? aroals teal irepicrrvKois, 
tou9 fiev apyvpals tovs 8e %pvaals Xeiricn irepieC\rj<^>6ai J 
Ta? he Kepafilhas apyvpa? elvai iraaas. And again, 'O 
vabs . . . tovs fciovas el^e tovs irept^ Ke^pvcrcofievovs (gilt), fcal 
KepapLihes apyvpeu /cal Tfkelovs iv avru> avvereOeivro, irXlvOot 
he %pvcral t ives oXtyao p,ev rjaav, cipyv pal he koX 
7rXelovs virefjbevov. (Bk. x. ch. 27, § 10 and § 12.) 



Lect. III.] NOTES. 321 

Note ( 58 ), p. 84. 
For the use of gold in ornamentation by the Phoenicians, 
see above, notes 43 and 51 ; and compare Kenrick's Phoenicia, 
p. 252, and 0. Miiller's Handbuch der Archdologie der Kunst, 
p. 273, second edition. For its use by the Assyrians, see 
Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 651, 652. For its use 
by the Babylonians, see the last note, and compare the 
author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 243, note 5 . 

Note ( 59 ), p. 84. 
Menander, Fr. 1 : Outo? (sc. Etjoew/^o?) eyusae tov evpv%co- 
pov, tov re yjpvaovv Kiova tov iv rot? tov Ato? dviOiy/cev. Com- 
pare Theophilus, as quoted in note 51. 

Note ( 60 ), p. 84. 
See Mr. Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 252. 

Note ( 61 ), p. 84. 
Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 195, 196. 

Note ( 62 ), p. 84, 
Ibid. p. 150. 

Note {62 b), p. 85. 
See Mr. Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 354. 

Note (63), p. 86. 
The geographic accuracy of this portion of Scripture is 
even more striking than that of the Pentateuch. Dr. Stanley 
says—" It is impossible not to be struck by the constant 
agreement between the recorded history and the natural geo- 
graphy both of the Old and New Testament. To find a 
marked correspondence between the scenes of the Sinaitic 
mountains and the events of the Israelite wanderings is not 
much perhaps, but it is certainly something towards a proof 
of the truth of the whole narrative . . . The detailed harmony 
between the life of Joshua and the various scenes of his 
battles, is a slight but true indication that we are dealing not 
with shadows, but with realities of flesh and blood. Such 
coincidences are not usually found in fables, least of all in 
fables of Eastern origin." (Sinai and Palestine, Preface, 

Y 



322 



NOTES. 



[Lect. Ill, 



p. xviii.) And this detailed harmony he exhibits in his 
fourth, seventh, and eleventh chapters. 

Among minute points of agreement brought to light by 
recent researches may be mentioned (1.) the position of the 
Hagarites or Hagarenes to the east of the land of Gilead, 
towards or upon the Euphrates (1 Chron. v. 9, 10) ; which is 
the exact locality where they are found three or four centuries 
later, in an inscription of Sennacherib. (See the author's 
Herodotus, vol. i. p. 476.) (2.) The existence of female 
sovereigns among the Arabs about this period, which is shewn 
by the mention of certain " Queens of the Arabs " in the 
inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser and others. (Ibid. pp. 470 and 
473.) (3.) The continued importance of the Moabites and 
Ammonites, which appears by the occurrence of their names g 
in the Inscriptions among the enemies of Assyria. 

Note (64), p. 87. 

The great Assyrian Empire of Ctesias, which was said to 
have extended from Egypt to India, and to have lasted above 
1300 years, from about b. c. 2182 to B. c. 876, is one of the 
most palpable contradictions of Scripture which profane history 
furnishes. Hence it was generally accepted and maintained 
by the French historians of the last century. Equally opposed 
to Scripture is the Median Empire of Ctesias, commencing in 
b. c. 876 with the destruction of Nineveh, and continuing to 
the time of Cyrus. It was for a long time considered doubt- 
ful among historical critics, whether the authority of Ctesias 
or that of Herodotus was to prevail ; but as time went on, as 
the importance of Berosus's history came to be recognised, 
and more especially when the cuneiform monuments began 
to be decyphered, the star of Ctesias began to pale and his 
credit to sink. Niebuhr long ago remarked, that his Assyrian 
history was "wholly to be rejected." (Vortrdge uber Alte 
Greschichte, vol. i. p. 16; p. 12, E. T.) M. Bunsen, even while 
making use of him, allows that he was " a confused and un- 
critical writer." {Egypt, vol. iii. p. 432.) Col. Mure {Language 



* Moab appears as Mahal (Heb. 
UX'>J0), Ammon as Beth-Ammon, 
which is probably the chief city, the 



Rabbah or Rabbah-Ammon of Scrip- 
ture. 



Lect. III.] NOTES. 323 

and Literature of Ancient Greece, vol. v. p. 484), calls him 
" an author of proverbially doubtful veracity." Even his apo- 
logists can now say little more in his defence, than that 
" there is no positive evidence for charging hhn with wilfully 
falsifying history." (See the article on Ctesias in Dr. Smith's 
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, vol. i. p. 899.) 

Note ( 65 ), p. 88. 

See Norton's Disquisition on the Old Testament in his 
Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 498. De Wette, after 
objecting to the miracles and prophecies recorded in SamueL 
says — " Elsewhere the narrative bears the marks of a genuine 
history, and where it is not partly derived from contemporary 
documents — as it is in some places — it is yet drawn from an 
oral tradition, very lively and true, and is only disturbed and 
confused here and there." (Mnleitung, § 178, p. 222 ; Parker's 
Translation, vol. ii. p. 210.) He also finds " authentic historical 
accounts " in the books of Kings. (Ibid. § 183, p. 232 ; vol. ii. 
p. 230, E. T.) 



y 2 



324 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 



LECTURE IV. 



Note ( 1 ), p. 91. 
See Lecture III. p. 82. 

Note ( 2 ), p. 91. 
Ibid. p. 87. 

Note ( 3 ), p. 92. 

The author of Chronicles refers us either to " the book of 
the Kings " (2 Chr. xxiv. 27), or more explicitly to " the book 
of the Kings of Israel and Judah " (2 Chr. xxvii. 7 ; xxvtii. 26 ; 
xxxii. 32 ; xxxv. 27.) But the author of Kings throughout 
distinguishes between "the book of the Chronicles of the 
Kings of Judah " (1 Kings xiv. 19 ; xv. 7, 23 ; xxii. 46 ; 
2 Kings viii. 23 ; xii. 19 ; xiv. 18 ; &c), and " the book of the 
Chronicles of the Kings of Israel " (1 Kings xiv. 19 ; xv. 31 ; 
xvi. 5, 14, 20, 27 ; xii. 39 ; 2 Kings i. 18 ; x. 34 ; xiii. 8, 12, &c.) 
The most probable explanation of this difference is, that the 
two documents were originally separate, having been drawn 
up in and for the two different kingdoms ; but that by the 
time of the writer of our books of Chronicles they had been 
united in one, and were known to the Jews under the title 
which he uses. (See Keil, Apologetischer Versuch iiber die 
Biicher der Chronik, p. 252, et seq. And compare his 
Commentar ilber die Biicher der Konige, Einleitung, § 3, p. 18, 
E. T. h ) 

Note (4), p. 92. 

This seems to be the real meaning of the difficult pas- 
sage in Chronicles (2 Chr. xx. 34), which our translators 
have rendered incorrectly in the text, but correctly, so far 
as the letter goes, in the margin : — " Now the rest of the 
acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are 
written in the words of Jehu, the son of Hanani, who 

* Coram en tary on the books of I translated by James Murphy, LL.D. 
Kings, by Karl Friedrich Keil, D. D. | Edinburgh, Clark, 1857. 



Lect. IV. J NOTES, 325 

was made to ascend into the book of the kings of Israel " — 
bwy&l 9J?0 13D"^g hbyjl -WN — i. e. who (the author 
being identified with his work) was transferred or removed to 
the book of the Kings of Israel. The LXX interpreters 
paraphrase rather than translate when they say, " who wrote 
a book of the Kings of Israel " (o? /carerypayfre filpkiov fiacri- 
\ecov 'laparjX). Compare Keil, 1. s. e. 

Note (5), p. 92. 

See 2 Chron. xxxii. 32. Our translators have destroyed 
the force of the passage by following the LXX and inter- 
polating the word " and." " The rest of the acts of Hezekiah," 
they say, " and his goodness, behold they are written in the 
vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amos, and in the book 
of the kings of Judah and Israel." But in the original there 
is no " and " : the passage runs, " the rest of the acts of Heze- 
kiah, and his goodness, behold, they are written in the vision 
of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amos, in the booh of the 
kings of Judah and Israel." 

Note ( 6 ), p. 92. 
The 36th, 37th, and 38th chapters of Isaiah, are almost 
identical with a part of the 18th, the 19th, and the 20th 
chapters of the second Book of Kings. The slightness of their 
differences will best be seen by placing an extract or two in 
parallel columns : — 

2 Kings. Isaiah. 

Chap, xviii. 17-20. And the Chap, xxxvi. 2-5. And the 
king of Assyria sent Tartan and king of Assyria sent Babshakeh 
Rabsaris and Eab-shakeh from from Lachish to Jerusalem unto 
Lachish to king Hezekiah, with king Hezekiah with a great 
a great host against Jerusalem. army. And he stood by the 
And they went up and came to Je- conduit of the upper pool in the 
rusalern. And when they were come highway of the fuller's field. 
up, they came and stood by the Then came forth unto him Eli- 
conduit of the upper pool, which akim, Hilkiah's son, which was 
is in the highway of the fuller's over the house, and Shebna the 
field. And when they had called to scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, 
the king, there came out to them the recorder. And Eabshakeh 
Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, Said unto them, Say ye now to 
which was over the household, Hezekiah, Thus saith the great 
and Shebna the scribe, and Joah king, the king of Assyria, What 



326 



NOTES. 



[Lect. IV. 



the son of Asaph the recorder. 
And Kab-shakeh said unto 
them, Speak ye now to Hezekiah, 
Thus saith the great king, the 
king of Assyria, What confi- 
dence is this wherein thou 
trustest ? Thou sayest, but they 
are but vain words — I have 
counsel and strength for the war. 
Now on whom dost thou trust, 
that thou rebellest against me ? 

Ch. xix. 1 5-19. And Hezekiah 
prayed before the Lord, and said, 
O, Lord God of Israel, which 
dwellest between the cherubims, 
thou art the God, even thou 
alone, of all the kingdoms of the 
earth : thou hast made heaven 
and earth. Lord, bow down 
thine ear and hear ; open, Lord, 
thine eyes, and see ; and hear 
the words of Sennacherib, which 
hath sent him to reproach the 
living God. Of a truth, Lord, 
the kings of Assyria have de- 
stroyed the nations and their 
lands, and have cast their gods 
into the fire, for they were no 
gods, but the work of men's 
hands, wood and stone : there- 
fore they have destroyed them. 
Now therefore, O Lord our God, 
/ beseech thee, save thou us out of 
his hand, that all the kingdoms 
of the earth may know that 
thou art the Lord God, even 
thou only. 



confidence is this wherein thou 
trustest? ./ say, [sayest thou], 
but they are but vain words, I 
have counsel and strength for 
war : now on whom dost thou 
trust, that thou rebellest against 
me? 



Chap, xxxvii. 15-20. And 
Hezekiah prayed unto the Lord, 
saying, Lord of hosts, God of 
Israel, that dwellest between 
the cherubims, thou art the 
God, even thou alone, of all the 
kingdoms of the earth ; thou 
hast made heaven and earth. 
Incline thine ear, O Lord, and 
hear ; open thine eyes, O Lord, 
and see ; and hear all the words 
of Sennacherib, which hath sent 
to reproach the living God. 
Of a truth, Lord, the kings of 
Assyria have laid waste all the 
lands and their countries, and 
have cast their gods into the fire, 
for they were no gods, but the 
work of men's hands, wood and 
stone ; therefore they have de- 
stroyed them. Now, therefore, 
O Lord our God, save us from 
his hand, that all the kingdoms 
of the earth may know that 
thou art the Lord, even thou 
only. 



Note ( 7 ), p. 92. 
This agreement is chiefly between the last chapter of Jere- 
miah and the 24th and 25th chapters of the second Book of 
Kings. It is fully equal to that above exhibited between 
Kings and Isaiah. 

Note ( 8 ), p. 93. 
Keil, Commentar ilber die Bucher der Konige, Einleitung, 
§ 3 ; p. 19, E. T. 



Lect. IV. j 



NOTES. 



327 



Note ( 9 ), p. 93. 
De Wette, Einleitung, § 184, p. 234; vol. ii. p. 241, Parker's 
Translation ; Bertholdt, Einleitung, vol. iii. p. 154, et seq. 

Note ( 10 ), p. 94. 
This has been well shewn by Havernick {Einleitung, § 176, 
vol. ii. p. 201, et seq.), and Keil (Versuch liber die Biicher der 
ChroniJc, p. 199 et seq.). Keil, however, appears to me to 
go too far when he denies that the author of Chronicles made 
any use at all of Kings (Commentar iiber die Biicher der Konige, 
Einleitung, §' 3 ; p. 17, note 1, E. T.). Such passages as the 
subjoined shew something more than the mere use of a com- 
mon authority : — 



2 Chron. i. 14-17. 
And Solomon gathered cha- 
riots and horsemen : and he had 
a thousand and four hundred 
chariots, and twelve thousand 
horsemen, which he placed in the 
chariot cities, and with the king 
at Jerusalem. And the king 
made silver and gold at Jerusa- 
lem as plenteous as stones, and 
cedar trees made he as the syco- 
more trees that are in the vale 
for abundance. And Solomon 
had horses brought out of 
Egypt, and linen yarn : the 
king's merchants received the 
linen yarn at a price. And 
they fetched up, and brought forth 
out of Egypt a chariot for six 
hundred shekels of silver, and 
an horse for an hundred and fif- 
ty : and so brought they out 
[horses] for all the kings of the 
Hittites, and for the kings of 
Syria, by their means. 



1 Kings x. 26-29. 
And Solomon gathered to- 
gether chariots and horsemen ; 
and he had a thousand and four 
hundred chariots, and twelve 
thousand horsemen, whom he 
bestowed in the cities for chariots, 
and with the king at Jerusalem. 
And the king made silver to be 
in Jerusalem as plenteous as 
stones, and cedars made he to 
be as the sycomore trees that are 
in the vale, for abundance. And 
Solomon had horses brought 
out of Egypt, and linen yarn : 
the king's merchants received 
the linen yarn at a price. And 
a chariot came up and went out 
of Eg}^pt for six hundred she- 
kels of silver, and an horse for 
an hundred and fifty : and so 
for all the kings of the Hittites, 
and for the kings of Syria, did 
they bring them out by their 
means. 1 



Compare also 2 Chron. xiv. 1-4 with 1 Kings xv. 11, 12; 
2 Chron. xvi. 11-14 with 1 Kings xv. 23, 24 ; 2 Chron. xxii. 

1 In the original the resemblance the same roots are used where we have 

is even closer than in our translation, to say in the one case " fetched up 

It is the same word which is translated and brought forth," in the other 

as "placed," andas "bestowed," and " came up, and went out." 



328 



NOTES. 



[Lect. IV. 



10-12 with 2 Kings xi. 1-3; 2 Chron. xxiii. 1-21 with 2 Kings 
xi. 4-20 ; and 2 Chron. xxxiv. 8-33 with 2 Kings xxiii. 5-20. 
In almost all these passages, however, the Chronicler intro- 
duces points not mentioned by the author of Kings, so that 
he evidently does not trust to him as his sole authority; e. g. 



1 Kings xv. 23 24. 
The rest of the acts of Asa, 
and all his might, and all that 
he did, and the cities which he 
built, are they not written in 
the book of the Chronicles of 
the kings of Judah? Never- 
theless, in the time of his old 
age he was diseased in his feet. 
And Asa slept with his fathers, 
and was buried with his fa- 
thers in the city of David his 
father ; and Jehoshaphat his 
son reigned in his stead. 



2 Chron. xvi. 11-14. 

And, behold, the acts of Asa, 
first and last, lo, they are writ- 
ten in the book of the kings of 
Judah and Israel. And Asa 
in the thirty and ninth year of his 
reign was diseased in his feet, 
until his disease was exceeding 
great ; yet in his disease he sought 
not to the Lord hut to the physi- 
cians. And Asa slept with his 
fathers and died in the one and 
fortieth year of his reign ; and 
they buried him in his own se- 
pulchres which he had made for 
himself in the city of David, and 
laid him in the bed which was filled 
with sweet odours and divers kinds 
of spices prepared by the apothe- 
caries' art ; and they made a very 
great burning for him. And Je- 
hoshaphat, &c. 

Note ( 11 ), p. 95. 

See the remarks of Mons. C. Miiller, prefixed to his col- 
lection of the Fragments of Manetho in the Fragmenta His- 
toricorum Crrcecorum, vol. ii. pp. 514, 515. 

Note (12), p. 95. 

' The discrepancies between the books of Chronicles, on the 
one hand, and the books of Samuel and Kings, on the other, 
have been largely, if not forcibly, stated by De Wette (Mn~ 
leitung § 190, p. 244 et seq.), and his commentator, Mr. 
Theodore Parker (vol. ii. pp. 266-305). A satisfactory ex- 
planation of the greater number will be found in Keil's 
Apologetischer Versuch, to which the student is referred, as 



Lect. IV.] 



NOTES. 



329 






well as to Bertheau's Commentary of which a translation has 
recently appeared 1 . Some, however, as the difference of num- 
bers and names, cannot but remain discrepancies ; in these we 
may be allowed to suspect corruptions of the original text, by 
carelessness in transcription, or by the insertion of marginal 
addenda. (See the excellent remarks of Professor Stuart, 
Defence of the Old Testament Canon, § 6, pp. 143-145 ; and 
compare the article, on * Chronicles,' in Kitto's Cyclopaedia). 

Note ( 13 ), p. 96. 

See Mr. Vance Smith's Prophecies relating to Nineveh and 
the Assyrians, p. 76. The special object of this work is to 
elucidate a certain portion of the prophecies by the light 
thrown upon them from the connected histories of the Assy- 
rians and Hebrews. Similar efforts have been made in Ger- 
many by Hitzig k , Otto Strauss 1 , and others. 

Note ( 14 ), p. 96. 

Jonah is commonly placed somewhat earlier ; but his work 
(if it be his, which is doubtful) belongs rather ti > the histori- 
cal than the prophetical Scriptures. 

Note ( 15 ), p. 97. 

By Paley, in his Horo3 Paulina 3 , a work which for close- 
ness, clearness, and cogency of reasoning has never been 
surpassed, and rarely equalled. 

Note ( 16 ), p. 98. 

The kings of Israel and Judah mentioned in the Assyrian 
Inscriptions are Jehu, Menahem, Hezekiah, and Manasseh. 
Jehu's name appears on the Black Obelisk in the British 
Museum, a monument of the Old Empire, dating probably 
from about B.C. 870 ; Menahem is mentioned by Tiglath- 
Pileser II., the first monarch of the New Empire, who began 
to reign in B.C. 747 ; Hezekiah occurs among the enemies of 
Sennacherib, who did not ascend the throne till about B.C. 
700 ; and Manasseh is found among the tributaries of Sen- 

i This translation forms the latter k Zwolf Kleinen Propheten er- 

portion of the 16th volume of klart, Leipsic, 1838. 
Clark's Foreign TJieological Library, * Nahumi de Nino Vaticinium, 

New Series, Edinburgh, 1857. Berlin, 1853. 



330 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 

nacherib's son, Esarhaddon. No doubt the Scriptural names 
have helped to determine the date of the monuments ; but 
putting these names aside, and looking merely to forms of 
language, style of writing, character of sculpture, and posi- 
tion of the monuments when in situ, I believe no cuneiform 
scholar would hesitate as to the relative antiquity to be 
assigned to them. 

Note (17), p. 98. 

The practice of calling cities after the names of their 
founders has always prevailed in the East. Perhaps the ear- 
liest known instance is that of Ramesses — the Beth-Rameses 
of the Hieratic Papyri. (See note 87 on Lecture II. p. 
295.) That the Assyrians were acquainted with the prac- 
tice we know from the case of Sargon, who called the city 
which he built a little to the north of Nineveh, Beth-Sargina, 
or Dur-Sargina, " the abode of Sargon." Esarhaddon, too, 
in one of his Inscriptions, says, "A city I built. City of 
Esarhaddon I called its name m ." In more recent times the 
names Ahmed-abad, Shereef-abad, Hyder-abad, &c, have had 
a similar origin. 

Samaria is only called Beth-Khumri in the earlier inscrip- 
tions. Erom the time of Tiglath-Pileser II. the term used is 
Tsamirin. 

Note ( 18 ), p. 99. 

So Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 376. 
M. Bunsen reads the legend Jutah Malk, and translates (not 
very intelligibly) " Judah, King." (See his Egypt, vol. iii. 
p. 295.) He agrees however as to its intention, and views it 
as a proof of Sheshonk's having made an expedition to Jeru- 

oq lpTYl 

Note ( 19), p. 100. 
There were three Osorkons in the 21st dynasty, according 
to the monuments, though Manetho mentioned but one. 
Osorkon the I. was the son and successor of Shishak. It is 
just possible that he may have been the assailant of Asa n . 
Sir G. Wilkinson, however, regards Osorkon II., who mar- 
ried the great-granddaughter of Shishak, as more naturally 



m Hoc Mr. Fox Talbot's Assyrian 
Texts translated, ]>. 11. 



n This is M. Bunsen's view, 
Egypt, vol. iii. p. 308. 



Lect. IV.] NOTES. 331 

the contemporary of Asa, the great-grandson of Solomon, 
since Solomon and Shishak were contemporaries. (See the 
author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 378.) 

Note (20), p. 101. 

Menander said — TeXevTrjaavTos Wipco/juov BieSi^aro ttjv /3a- 
cnXelav J$a\ed%apos (1. J$aX6d£apos) 6 vlos, o? {3t,(*)o-a$ €ttj Tea- 
aapcuKovra rpla ifiaaiXevaev err] eiTTa. Wlera tovtov 'A/3Sa- 
GTpaTos (1. 'A/3Sac7TapTO?) 6 dVTOv vlbs ficcoaas err] el/coat, 
ivvea eftaaiXevaev err) ivvea. Tovtov oi tt}? Tpocfrov avTov 
viol Teaaapes iiriftovXevaavTes diroSXeaav, cov 6 irpeaftvTepos 
iftaaiXevaev €Ttj ScbSe/ca. Me#' oD? " AaTapTo? 6 AeXaiaaTap- 
tov, o? (3iQ)cras errt) irevTrjKOVTa Teaaapa iftaaiXevaev eTTj 
ScoSe/ca. M.€Ta tovtov 6 dSeXcf)bs clvtov 'Ao-epuyu-o? fitcoaas 
6T7) Teaaapa kol irevTrj/covTa ifiaaiXevaev ern] ivvea. Ovto<; 
dTrocokeTo virb tov dSeXtyov ^eA/z/TO?, o? Xaftoov tt\v ftaaCXelav 
rjp^e [irjvm 6/ctg), fiioio-as errj nrevTrjKovTa. Tovtov dvetXev 
Et0G<>/3aAo?, o tt}? 'Ao-Tapr^? lepevs, 6? /3aai\evaa<; errj Tpid- 
fcovTa hvo ifflcoaev €T7j e^rj/covTa 6/ctq). (Ap. Joseph. Contra 
Apionem, i. 18.) We have thus from the death of Hiram, 
which cannot have taken place till the 26th year of Solomon's 
reign (1 Kings ix. 10-14), the following series — Balthazar, 7 
years ; Abdastartus, 9 years ; his successor, 12 years ; 
Astartus, 12 years ; Aserymus, 9 years ; Pheles, eight months ; 
total 49 years and eight months. In Ahab's case we have 
Jeroboam, 22 years ; Nadab, 2 years ; Baasha, 24 years ; 
Elah, 2 years ; Omri, 12 years ; total 62 years ; to which 
must be added some 10 or 12 years for the excess of Solo- 
mon's reign over Hiram's. It thus appears that Ahab 
ascended the throne about 20 or 25 years after Eth-baal. 

Note (21), p. 101. 

See Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 362 ; Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. 
p. 428 ; Keil's Commentar, p. 259, E. T., &c. 

Note ( 22 ), p. 101. 

The term " Zidonians " seems to bear the generic sense in 
1 Kings xi. 1 and 5 ; and 2 Kings xxiii. 13 ; but the specific 
in Judges x. 12 ; and xviii. 7. The earlier preeminence of 
Sidon (see note 32 to Lecture III.) sufficiently accounts 



332 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 

for the generic use, which was well known to the Greek and 
Latin Poets (Horn. Ocl. xiii. 285 ; Soph. Fr. lxxxii. ; Eurip, 
Hel. 1429 ; Yirg. Mn.-i. 446, &c.) 

Note (23), p. 102. 

See Josephus, Ant. Jud. viii. 13 : MefivTjrai 8e t?}? dvo/ub- 
/3/?/<z? TavTrjs kclI M.evav$pos iv rat? ^WcoftaXov tov Tvpccov /3a- 
crtXea)? irpd^eai Xeycov of/To)?* " *Kf3po%ia re iir avrov iyevero, 
diro tov ^Tirepfteperaiov /jltjvos eft)? tov i^o/juevov eVou? tov 
"TTrepfiepeTaiov. 'Ifcerelav 8' avrov Troir/aafAevov, Kepavvov? 
Ikclvovs fiefSkTiicevaL." May we connect the "supplication" 
in the last clause with that of Elijah on mount Carmel 
(1 Kings xviii. 42, 43), which overhung the Tyrian terri- 
tory ? 

Note (24), p. 102. 

No continuous history of Syria has come down to us. Ni- 
colas of Damascus, whose influence with Herod the Great 
and with Augustus must have given him access to any ar- 
chives that Damascus or the other Syrian towns may have 
possessed, appears to have introduced a short sketch of an- 
cient Syrian History in the fourth book of his great work, 
which treated mainly of the early Lydian kings. (See Mid- 
ler's preface to the Fragments of Nicolas, in his Fragm. Hist. 
Grr. vol. iii. p. 345.) Of this sketch, however, we unfortunate- 
ly possess but three short fragments, preserved to us by Jose- 
phus . The first of these relates the sojourn of Abraham at 
Damascus, on his way from Chaldsea to Canaan— a sojourn 
deriving some support from the fact that Abraham's steward 
was a Damascene (Gen. xv. 2) — but absurdly makes Abraham 
" king of Damascus " during his stay (Fr. 30.) The second 
has been given at length in the notes on Lecture III. (Note 
28.) The third is interpreted by Josephus as bearing upon 
the Syrian war of Ahab ; but its true reference is to that of 
Baasha. It runs thus — TeXevrrjo-avros 8' iicelvov (sc. Hadad I.) 
ol drro'yovot iirl Se/ca <yeved<; i/3aai\€vov, etcdaTov irapd tov 
Trarpbs dfia rfj dp^fj x^ tovvojjlo, rovro iK^e^ofievov, coairep ol 
YlroXe/bLatoc iv Al<yv7rra). M.iyLarov oe irdvrcov hvvrjOels 6 
T/HTo?, dvapba^eaaaOat (Bovkofievo^ ttjv tov irpoTrdropos tjttclv, 
° Ant. Jud. vii. 5. 



Lect. IV.] NOTES. 333 

crTpareixras iirl 'lovBalovs e7rop07jore rrjv vvv %a/nap6iTLV /caXov- 
fjuevriv. (Fr. 31.) It is evident that Hadad III., who was the 
grandson of David's antagonist, cannot have contended 
against Ahab, 140 years afterwards. Nicolas undoubtedly 
intends the antagonist of Baasha, half a century earlier, 
whose inroad was completely successful, and who reduced 
Samaria to a sort of subjection (1 Kings xv. 20, xx. 34). 
With respect to the continuance of the name and family of 
Hadad on the Damascene throne for ten generations, Nicolas 
appears to be at variance with Scripture. Seemingly he takes 
no account of the break in the line caused by the usurpation 
of Hazael. Perhaps in Syrian history this was glossed over, 
and Hazael regarded as having had a claim of blood. At any 
rate it is remarkable that he adopted the family name of the 
preceding dynasty for his* son, who is called Ben-hadad in 
2 Kings xiii. 3. 

Note ( 25 ), p. 103. 
See the Black Obelisk Inscription, which has been very 
accurately translated by Dr. Hincks, in the Dublin University 
Magazine for October, 1853. Compare the author's Hero- 
dotus, vol. i. pp. 464, 465. 

Note ( 26 ), p. 103. 
" Benhadad, the king of Syria, gathered all his host toge- 
ther ; and there were thirty and two kings with him, and 
horses, and chariots" (1 Kings xx. 1.) " Number thee an 
army like the army which thou hast lost, horse for horse, and 
chariot for chariot." (Ibid, verse 25.) The Syrian armies ap- 
pear in the Black Obelisk Inscription to be composed to a 
very large extent of chariots. As many as 1100 are taken 
on one occasion.' The multitude of petty princes mentioned 
is also in accordance with the inscriptions generally, which 
represent the whole country between the Euphrates and 
Egypt as divided up among a number of tribes and nations, 
each under its own king or chief. 

Note ( 27 ), p. 103. 
The Black Obelisk king, in his 6th, 11th, and 14th years, con- 
tends with Ben-hadad, but in his 18th his adversary is Hazael. 
' Dublin Univ. Mag. October, 1853, pp. 422, 423, and 424.) 



334 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 

Note ( 28 ), p. 103. 

The Obelisk contains no account of any war with Jehu ; 
but mentions him among those who paid tribute to the Assy- 
rian monarch. He is styled " Yahua, the son of Khumri" — 
Jehu, the son of Omri, which causes some difficulty. Jehu 
is said in Scripture to have been the son of Jehoshaphat, and 
grandson of Nimshi (2 Kings ix. 2, 14.) It is possible, how- 
ever, that he may have been on the mother's side descended 
from Omri. Or the story of his being so descended may have 
been invented by the Samaritans, and believed by foreign 
nations. Or, finally, the Assyrians may merely have assumed 
that he was a descendant of Omri, since he sat on his throne, 
and ruled in the city known to them by his name. (See 
above, note 17.) His tribute consisted of silver, gold, and 
articles of various kinds manufactured from gold. 

Note (29), p. 104. 

The only remains of this period are an inscription set up 
by the son of the Black Obelisk king, relating his military 
exploits during the first four years of his reign, and two 
or three brief inscriptions of the time of his successor, the 
most important of which is that noticed below (Note 33). 
The campaigns of the earlier king are in Babylonia, Media, 
Armenia, and along the flanks of Taurus, but do not touch 
Syria or Palestine. 

Note (30), p. 104. 

See Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 367 : " Our knowledge of the 
history of Tyre ceases with Dido's flight, at the end of the 
ninth century, B. c, and we hear nothing of its internal 
state till the reign of Elulseus, the contemporary of Shal- 
maneser. ,, In fact we have nothing authentic for the early 
period but the Fragments of Dius and Menander, and these 
fail us entirely from the reign of Pygmalion to that of Elu- 
lseus. 

Note ( 31 ), p. 105. 

See Euseb. Chronica, i. 4 ; p. 18, ed. Mai. " Post hos ait 
extitisse Chaldaeorum regem, cui nomen Phulus erat." 



Lect. IV.] NOTES. 335 

Note (32), p. 105. 

In 2 Kings xv. 19, the LXX interpreters render Pul by 
Phua (tf?ovd), where the terminal a is probably a false read- 
ing arising out of the resemblance of A to A. In 1 Chron. 
v. 26, the reading of the Vatican and most MSS. is <L>a\<»%, 
but some copies have <E>a\a>?. 

Note (33), p. 105. 

A full account of this inscription, first decyphered by 
Sir H. Rawlinson, will be found in the Athenceum, No. 1476, 
p. 174. A general summary of its contents is given in the 
author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 467. 

Note (34), p. 106. 
See Sir H. Eawlinson's letter in the Athenceum, 1. s. c. 

Note (35), p. 107. 
The conjunction of Eezin with Pekah, and the capture and 
destruction of Damascus, which are noted in the inscription, 
seem to prove that it is the second expedition that is in- 
tended. Whether it be the first, however, or the second, the 
name of Menahem must equally be rejected. (See 2 Kings, 
xv. 29, and xvi. 9.) It is easily conceivable, that, if the 
sculptor had been accustomed to engrave the royal annals, 
and had often before entered the name of Menahem as that 
of the Samaritan king, he might engrave it here in his haste, 
without consulting his copy. Or possibly, Pekah may have 
taken the name of Menahem, to connect himself with the 
dynasty which he had displaced. 

Note ( 36 ), p. 107. 
The older interpreters, as Keil remarks p , proceeding on the 
supposition that the altar was Syrian, and dedicated to the 
Syrian gods, endeavoured to answer the question why Ahaz 
chose the gods not of the victorious Assyrians, but of the van- 
quished Syrians — a question to which it was very difficult to 
give a satisfactory reply. Among recent writers, Bertheau 
(Commentar uber d. Buck. d. Chronik, p. 421, E. T.), Ewald 
(G-eschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. iii. pp. 325, 326), and 
p Commentar uber d. Buch. d. Konige, § 2 ; vol. ii. p. 45, E. T. 



336 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 

Vance Smith {Prophecies concerning Assyria, p. 27), follow the 
old view. Keil himself regards the question as unimportant, 
since he supposes that no idolatrous rites or ideas were con- 
nected with the altar. Ahaz, according to his view, having 
seen a pattern which he fancied better than that of Solomon's 
altar, adopted it ; and his sin was " inepta iOeXoOpno-fceia" 
(So Buddseus, Hist. Eccles. vol. ii. p. 428.) 

Note (37), p. 108. 
See the great inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I. pp. 30, 38,- 
40, 44, 48, &c. ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. 
p. 495. 

Note (38), p. 108. 

Josephus says of Shalmaneser — To he ovoyua tovtov tov 
ftaaiXeoos ev tols Tvplcov dpyeiot^ dvayeypairrai' iaTpdrevcre 
yap eirl Tvpov /SaaiXevovro? clvtoIs 'JLXovkalov. M.aprvpel he 
tovtols teal ^/ievavhpos 6 tcov Xpovt/ccbv nroino-dybevo^ rrjv ava- 
<ypacf>r}V kclI tcl tmv Tvplcov apyela /jLeTa<fipdcra<; eh rrjv ' HLWwvi- 
kt]v jXcoTrav. (Antiq. Jud. ix. 14.) 

Note ( 39 ), p. 108. 
See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 471, note 7 . 

Note (40), p. 108. 

Ibid. p. 472. 

Note ( 41 ), p. 109. 

Scripture states that Shalmaneser " came up against Ho- 
shea " and besieged Samaria (2 Kings, xviii. 9) ; but Scripture 
nowhere expressly states that Shalmaneser took the city. 
<< The king of Assyria," it is said in one place, " took it " (ib. 
xvii. 6 ; in another " they (i.e. the Assyrians) took it " ib. 
xviii. 10.) That Shalmaneser was the captor is only an in- 
ference from Scripture — a natural inference undoubtedly, but 
not a necessary one. 

Note ( 42 ), p. 109. 

Sargon has been identified with Shalmaneser by Vitringa, 

Offenhaus, Prideaux, Eichhorn, Hupfeld, Gumpach, and M. 

Niebuhr q ; with Sennacherib by Grotius, Lowth, Keil, and 

i Gischiclite Assurs und Bethels seit Phul, p. 160. 



Lect. IV.] NOTES. 337 

Schroer, ; with Esarhaddon by Perizonius, Kalinsky, and 
Mickaelis. (See Winer's Realworterbuch ad voc. Sargon.) 
His separate personality is now generally admitted. (See 
Brandis, Rerum Assyriarum Tempora Bmendata, p. 64, and 
Tab. Chron. ad fin. Oppert, Rapport d'une Mission Scien- 
tifique en Angleterre, p. 38 ; Vance Smith, Prophecies, &c., pp. 
31, 32 ; Ewald, Geschichte des VolTces Israel, vol. iii. pp. 333, 
334 ; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 618-620, &c.) 

Note (43), p. 109. 

See Sir H. Eawlinson's Commentary on the Inscriptions of 
Babylonia and Assyria, p. 19, note 2 , where a passage proving 
this is quoted from Yaciit, the famous Arabian geographer. 

Note (44), p. 109. 

See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 473, note 4 ; and com- 
pare Vance Smith's Prophecies, &c, p. 35. 

Note (45), p. 110. 

When Sargon took Ashdod, its king (he tells us) fled to 
Muzr (Mizraim or Egypt), which was subject to Mirukha 
(Meroe, or Ethiopia). See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 
474. 

Note (46), p. 110. 

Ibid. p. 473. 

Note (47), p. 112. 

The translation in the text has been read by Sir H. Kaw- 
linson before various Societies and Public Meetings : but it 
has remained, I believe, hitherto unpublished. It will be 
found to agree in all important points with Dr. Hincks's ver- 
sion, as given by Mr. Layard (Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 143, 
144.) 

Note (48), p. 112. 

Mr. Layard gives a slightly different explanation (Nin. and 
Bab. p. 145) : — " There is a difference of 500 talents, as it 
will be observed, in the amount of silver. It is probable that 
Hezekiah was much pressed by Sennacherib, and compelled 
to give him all the wealth that he could collect, as we find 
him actually taking the silver from the house of the Lord, as 



338 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 

well as from his own treasury, and cutting off the gold from 
the doors and pillars of the temple, to satisfy the demands of 
the Assyrian king. The Bible may therefore only include the 
actual amount of money in the 300 talents of silver, whilst the 
Assyrian records comprise all the precious metal taken away." 

Note (49), p. 113. 
Herodot. ii. 141. This testimony was first adduced by Jo- 
sephus {Ant. Jud. x. 1), from whom it passed on to the 
Christian commentators generally. The " chief difficulty" in 
reconciling Herodotus with Scripture has been generally said 
to be, the scene of the destruction. (See Joseph. 1. s. c, Pri- 
deaux's Connection of Sacred and Profane History, vol. i. p. 
18 ; M. Niebuhr's Qeschichte Assurs und Babels, p. 179 ; 
Vance Smith's Prophecies relating to Assyria, Introduction, p. 
43.) It has been commonly assumed that the scene was the 
immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem ; but this assumption 
is not only, as Mr. Yance Smith has shown {Prophecies, &c, 
p. 213), without warrant from Scripture, but it is actually con- 
tradictory to Scripture. God's promise to Hezekiah through 
Isaiah was : " He (Sennacherib) shall not come into this city, 
nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shield, nor 
cast a bank against it. By the way that he came, by the same 
shall he return, and shall not come into this city, saith the 
Lord." (2 Kings, xix. 32, 33 ; compare Is. xxxvii. 33, 34.) 

Note (50), p. 113. 

Eusebius says of Polyhistor — " Jam et reliquis Senecherimi 
gestis perscriptis, subdit eum annis vixisse [regnantem] octo- 
decim, — donee eidem structis a filio Ardumazane insidiis ex- 
tinctus est." {Chronica, i. 5, p. 19, ed. Mai.) 

Abydenus gives the name of one of the murderers more 
correctly, but represents the murder as committed, not on 
Sennacherib, but on his successor. " Proximus huic " {sc. 
Sennacheribo), he said, "regnavit Nergilus, quern Adrameles 
films occidit ; rursus hunc frater suus Axerdis (Esarhaddon ?) 
interfecit." (Ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 9 ; p. 25.) 

Note (51), p. 113. 
Both Sennacherib and Esarhaddon led hostile expeditions 
into Armenia, which appears to have been at no time tho- 



Lect. IV.] NOTES. 339 

roughly subjected by the Assyrian monarchs. (See the au- 
thor's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 478, 481.) 

Note (52), p. 113. 
Mos. Choren. i. 22 ; " Eum (sc. Senacharimum) filii ejus 
Adrammelus et Sanasarus ubi interfecerunt, ad nos confugere ; 
quorum unuin, Sanasarum, in ea regionis nostrae parte, quae 
inter occidentem solem et meridiem spectat, praBstantissimus 
noster progenitor, Scseordius, prope fines Assyrise collocavit, 
ejusque posteri . . montem eum . . complevere. Argamozanus r 
autem inter ortum solis et meridiem in eadem regione sedem 
nactus est ; a quo ortos esse Arzerunios ac Genunios histo- 
ricus ille (Mar- Abas) tradit." 

Note (53), p. 114. 
Esarhaddon in his inscriptions frequently speaks of Senna- 
cherib as his father. (See Fox Talbot, Assyrian Texts trans- 
lated, p. 13, and elsewhere.) The relationship is also wit- 
nessed to by Polyhistor, following Berosus. (Ap. Euseb. 
Chron. i. v. p. 19 ; compare p. 20, where Eusebius says, "His 
omnibus absolutis, pergit denuo Polyhistor res aliquot etiam 
a Senecheribo gestas exponere ; deque hujus filio eadem plane 
ratione scribit qua libri Hebrazorumr) 

Note (54), p. 114. 
Abydenus interpolates a reign between Sennacherib and 
Esarhaddon, which he assigns to a certain Nergilus, of whom 
no other trace is to be found. JSfergal was one of the Assyrian 
deities (2 Kings xvii. 30 ; and see the author's Herodotus, 
vol. i. pp. 631-633 ; compare also Dublin Univ. Mag. Oct., 
1853, p. 420), and cannot therefore have been a king's name. 
The Assyrian royal names contain most commonly a god's 
name as an element, but are never identical with the names 
of deities. It was otherwise in Phoenicia, where Baal and 
Astartus were monarchs. The account of Abydenus seems 
therefore unworthy of credit. 

Note (55), p. 114. 
" Manasseh, king of Judah," is mentioned among the sub- 
ject princes, who lent Esarhaddon workmen for the building 

r Compare the " Ardumazanes " of Polyhistor (supra, note 49 b ). Adram- 
melech is evidently intended. 

z 2 



340 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 

and ornamentation of his palaces. (See the author's Herodotus, 
vol. i. p. 483.) It is not surprising that we have no account of 
the expedition against Manasseh, since we do not possess the 
annals of Esarhaddon, but only some occcasional inscriptions. 

Note (56), p. 114. 

The Assyrians ordinarily governed Babylon through native 
viceroys. (See Berosus, Fr. 12 ; and the inscriptions, passim.) 
But Esarhaddon appears to have reigned there in his own per- 
son. Bricks found on the site of Babylon show that he 
repaired temples and built himself a palace there. Conse- 
quently in the authentic list of Babylonian kings preserved 
by Ptolemy (Magn. Syntax, v. 14), his name occurs, under the 
Grecised form of Asaridinus. A Babylonian tablet has been 
found, dated by the year of his reign — a sure indication that 
he was the actual ruler of the country. No similar facts can 
be proved of any other Assyrian monarch s . (See the author's 
Herodotus, vol. i. p. 482.) 

Note (57), p. 115. 
There is one only mention of Assyria in the historical 
Scriptures later than the reign of Manasseh, namely, the state- 
ment in 2 Kings xxiii. 29, that in the days of Josiah " Pharaoh- 
Necho, king of Egypt, went up against the king of Assyria to 
the river Euphrates." If this expression is to be taken strictly, 
we must consider that Assyria maintained her existence so 
late as b. c. 610. I believe, however, that the word " Assy- 
ria" is here used, somewhat negligently, for "Babylonia" (Cf. 
Keil ad loc. p. 154, E. T.), and that the Assyrian empire was 
destroyed in b. c. 625. (See Niebuhr, Vortrdge iiber Alte 
Gf-eschichte, vol. i. p. 47.) The first clear indication which Scrip- 
ture gives of the destruction is found in Ezekiel xxxi. 3-17 — 
a passage written B.C. 585. A more obscure notification of 
the event is perhaps contained in Jeremiah xxv. 15-26, where 
the omission of Assyria from the general list of the idola- 
trous nations would seem to imply that she had ceased to 
exist. This passage was written about B. c. 605. 

8 It has been suggested by Dr. grounded upon a certain degree of 

Hincks and others that the " Arcea- resemblance in the names. No 

mis" of Ptolemy's list is Sargon. traces of Sargon have been found in 

But this is a mere conjecture Babylonia. 



Lect. IV.] NOTES. 341 

Note (58), p. 115. 
Compare Herod, i. 106 and 178 ; Ctesias ap. Diod. Sic. ii. 
26-28 ; Abydenus ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 9, p. 25 ; Joseph. 
Ant. Jud. x. 5. See also Tobit, xiv. 15. 

Note (59), p. 116. 
The slight authority of the present " pointing " of the He- 
brew Text is generally admitted. The pointing from which 
our translators took their rendering of " So " is itfSD ; if the 
word were pointed thus — K)D — it would have to be rendered 
by " Seveh." (See Keil on 2 Kings xvi. 4-6, pp. 52, 53, E. T. ; 
and compare the author's Herodotus, vol, i. p. 472, note 2 .) 

Note ( 60 ), p. 116. 
See Mr. Birch's note in Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, ch. vi. 
pp. 156-159. Compare Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, 
vol. ii. pp. 217, 218, and 379 ; and Bunsen, Eyypt's Place, 
&c, vol. ii. p. 597. 

Note ( 61 ), p. 117. 
Herod, ii. 137. Most moderns incline to the view that the 
second Shebek is the So of Scripture. (See Winer's Real- 
worterbuch, ad voc. So ; Keil, Commentar ilber die Biicher der 
Konige, 1. s. c. ; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 157 ; Gese- 
nius, Comment, in Jes. vol. i. p. 696, &c.) The question is 
one of exact chronology. Tirhakah, it is argued, came against 
Sennacherib in the 14th year of Hezekiah, and So made a 
league with Hoshea in Hezekiah's third or fourth year. This 
then must have been in the reign of the second Shebek, to 
whom Manetho gave not less than 12 years. (See Keil. 1. s. c.) 
But, in the first place, So's league cannot be fixed to Heze- 
kiah's third or fourth year. A space of several years may 
intervene between the 4th and 5th verses of 2 Kings xvii. 
And, secondly, Manetho's numbers (as they have come down 
to us) cannot be trusted absolutely. According to them Tir- 
hakah reigned 18 or 20 years. (Frs. 64 and 65.) But the 
monuments distinctly assign him at least 26 years. (See 
Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 381.) They also 
appear to fix his accession to the year B.C. 690.* The reign 

* One of the Apis stelae seems to I year of Tirhakah died in the 21st 
say that a bull born in the 26th | year of Psammetichus, aged twenty- 



342 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 

of Hoshea was from B.C. 729 to B.C. 721, and his league 
with the Egyptians cannot have been later than b. c. 724. 
This is 34 years before the apparent date of the accession of 
Tirhakah, which is certainly too long a time to assign to the 
second Shebek. I therefore regard the So of Kings as pro- 
bably Shebek I. 

The difficulty with respect to Tirhakah's chronology will 
be considered in note 65. 

Note (62), p. 117. 
See Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 156-159. 

Note (63), p. 117. 
Tarcus is the form given as Manetho's by Africanus, 
Taracus that given by Eusebius. (See the Fragments of 
Manetho in Muller's Fr. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. p. 593 ; Frs. 64 
and 65.) The Hebrew word is njjrn.FI ; the LXX give 
®apa/cd. 

Note (64), p. 117. 

Strabo, G-eograph. i. 3, § 21 ; xv. 1, § 6. 

Note (65), p. 117. 

This is the reading of Sir Gardner Wilkinson. (See the 
author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 380.) Bunsen reads Taharuka 
{Egypt, vol. ii. p. 598) ; Kosellini, Tahraka. The consonants, 
T, H, B, K, are certain, but the vowels doubtful. 

If Tirhakah did not ascend the Egyptian throne till b. c. 
690, how (it may be asked) could he be contemporary with 
Hezekiah, whose last year was about b. c. 697, or b. c. 696 ? 
And how, especially, could he oppose Sennacherib, about the 
middle of Hezekiah's reign, or B. c 703 ? I venture to suggest 
that Tirhakah, when he marched against Sennacherib, may 
not yet have been king of Egypt. He is called " king of 
Ethiopia ;" and he may have ruled in Ethiopia, while the 
Shebeks, under his protection, held Egypt. I venture further 
to doubt whether we can fix the year of Sennacherib's contact 
with Tirhakah from Scripture. His first invasion of Judsea 
is said to have been in Hezekiah's 14th year (2 Kings xix. 
13) ; but it seems to be a second invasion, falling some years 

one. But there is some doubt about I kinson's note in the fourth volume 
this last number. (Sec Sir G. Wil- | of the author's Herodotus, p. ix.) 



Lect. IV.] NOTES. 343 

later, which is described in verses 17 to 36. In the marginal 
notes to our Bible, the two invasions are made to be three 
years apart. But the number three is purely conjectural ; 
and perhaps 13 or 14 is as likely. (See the author's Hero- 
dotus, p. 479, notes 1, 2, and 9.) 

Note (66), p. 117. 
Fragmenta Hist Gr. vol. ii. pp. 593, 594. Frs. 66 and 67. 
The form used is Ne%aa>. 

Note (67), p. 117. 
Herodotus (ii. 158) uses the form Ne/cob?, where the ? is the 
Greek nominative, and may therefore be cancelled. 

Note ( 68 ), p. 117. 
Kossellini expressed the monumental name by JSfeko, but 
M. Bunsen reads it Nekau or Neku, (Egypt, vol. ii. pp. 604, 
605.) 

Note (69), p. 117. 

On the frequent confusion between the names Migdol 
(VHP, MaySaXd, MdySoXov) and Megiddo (i^D, MayeS- 
Bca, MayeScov), see Dr. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, p. 
375, note \ Herodotus was not acquainted with the interior 
of Palestine, or he would have seen how much more suited 
for the site of a great battle was Megiddo in the plain of 
Esdraelon, than Magdolum on the shores of the Sea of 
Galilee. 

Note (70), p. 117. 

See Prideaux's Connection, &c. vol. i. pp. 56, 57 ; Kennell's 
Geography of Herodotus, pp. 245 and 683 ; Heeren's Asiatic 
Nations, vol. ii. ch. 4, p. 109, note 2. E. T. ; Dahlmann's Life 
of Herodotus, ch. iv. p. 55, E. T. ; Bahr's Excursus on Herod. 
ii. 159, vol. i. pp. 922, 923 ; Smith's Diet, of Greek and Roman 
Geography, vol. ii. p. 17 ; Keil's Commentar iXher d. BiXch. d. 
Konige, ch. xxiii. p. 159, E. T. ; Home's Introduction, vol. i. 
p. 208 ; and Kenrick's Ancient Egypt, vol. ii. p. 406. 

Note ( 71 ), p. 118. 
That the Cadytus of Herodotus was not Jerusalem, but a 
town upon the Syrian coast, is now generally admitted by 
scholars, and seems to follow necessarily from Herod, iii. 5. 



344 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 

The best authorities incline to identify it with Gaza, or 
Grhuzzek, called in the Assyrian Inscriptions Khazita. (See 
Hitzig, Disputatio de Cadyte urbe Herodotea ; and compare 
Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 246, note 2 ; 
Ewald, G-eschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. hi. p. 418, note 1 ; 
Sir H. Rawlinson, Outlines of Assyrian History, &c. ; and 
Bertheau, Commentar ilber d. Bilch. d. Chronik, § 17 ad fin. ; 
p. 457, E. T.) 

Note (72), p. 118. 
Africanus and Eusebius both report Manetho to have said 
of Necho ; — Outo? elXe ttjv 'lepovaaXrj/JL, koX 'Ioxz^af rov 
(BaaiXea al'^jjuakwrov eh AXyvirrov aTrrjyaye. (See the Frag- 
ments of Manetho in the Fragm. Hist. Gbr. vol. ii. pp. 593, 
594 ; Frs. 66 and 67.) 

Note (73), p. 118. 
So Sir Gardner Wilkinson reads the name on the monu- 
ments (Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 248, note 8 ). Eossellini read it 
as Hophre. M. Bunsen gives the strange form, Ba-uah-hat, 
(Egypt, vol. ii. pp. 604, 605.) 

Note (74), p. 118. 
Egyptian chronology placed the accession of Amasis 48 
years before that of Darius Hystaspis ; for Amasis, according 
to the consentient testimony of Herodotus (hi. 10), Manetho 
(ap. Syncell. p. 141, C), and the monuments (Wilkinson, in 
the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 387), reigned 44 years, 
Psammetichus, his son, half a year, Cambyses (in Egypt) 3 
years, u and the Pseudo-Smerdis a little more than half a year. 
The last year of Apries would thus be the 49th before Darius. 
Babylonian chronology made Nebuchadnezzar's last year the 
41st before that king. (See the Canon.) As Nebuchadnezzar 
reigned 43 years, and Apries only 19 (or at the utmost 25), 
the reign of the latter must have been entirely included 
within that of the former. Nebuchadnezzar reigned from b. c. 
604 to B. c. 561 ; Apries, probably, from b. o. 588 to b. c. 569. 

Note (75), p. 118. 
Manetho is reported to have said of Hophra (Uaphris), 
that he was the king, a> 7rpoae(f)vyov, akovaws V7r6 'Ao-avplcov 

u Or six years. (See Bunsen's Egypt, vol. ii. pp. 610, 611.) 



Lect. IV.] NOTES. 345 

'lepovcraXrjfA, ol tcov 'IovBcllgov viroXoLiroi (T?ragm. Hist. Gfr. 
vol. ii. pp. 593, 594; Frs. 66 and 67.) 

Note (76), p. 118. 

Herodotus was altogether misinformed about the rank and 
position of Amasis, who (according to him) deposed Apries 
and put him to death. (See Wilkinson, in the author's Hero- 
dotus, vol. ii. pp. 386, 387.) It is therefore less surprising 
that he should have been kept in ignorance of the part which, 
it is probable, Nebuchadnezzar played in the transaction. 
The Egyptians would naturally seek to conceal from him the 
fact, that the change of sovereigns was brought about by 
foreign influence. But nothing is more unlikely than that 
they should have invented the deposition and execution of 
one of their monarchs. Thus the passage, " I will deliver 
Pharaoh-Hophra into the hands of his enemies, and into the 
hands of those who seek Ms life " (Jer. xliv. 30), is confirmed 
by an unimpeachable testimony. 

Note (77), p. 119. 

M. Bunsen was, I believe, the first to suggest that the d in 
this name had taken the place of I, through the resemblance 
of A to A. (See his Egypt, vol. i. p. 726.) The restoration 
of the I brings the two names into close accordance, the only 
difference then being that in the Greek form one of the 
original elements of the name, adan or iddan, is suppressed. 
Such suppression is not uncommon. It may be traced in Pul 
for Phaloch, in Bupalussor for Nabopolasser (Abyden.), in 
Asaridanus for Assur-aM-iddan or Esar-Aaddon, and probably 
in Saracus for Assur-aJch-uzur, or some similar word. 

The identity of the Mardocempadus of the Canon with the 
Marduk-bal-iddan of the Inscriptions is certain ; and no 
reasonable doubt can be entertained of the identity of the 
latter with the Merodach-Baladan of Scripture. These views 
are now generally accepted. (See Brandis, Rerum Assyr. 
Temp, emend, p. 45 ; Oppert, Rapport, &c. pp. 48, 49 ; Hincks 
in Dull. Univ. Mag. No. 250, p. 421 ; Layard, Nineveh and 
Babylon, p. 140 ; Keil on 2 Kings xx. 12-19 ; p. 118, E. T. ; 
&c.) 



346 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 

Note (78), p. 119. 
Merodach-Baladan had two reigns, both noted in the In- 
scriptions. One of them is marked in Ptolemy's Canon, 
where it occupies the years B. c. 721-709. His other reign 
does not appear, since it lasted but six months, and the Canon 
marks no period short of a year. Polyhistor says (ap. Euseb. 
Chronica, i. 5) that it immediately preceded the reign of 
Elibus or Belibus, and the Inscriptions show that it was in 
the earlier part of the same year. This was the year b. c. 
702, according to the Canon. As Hezekiah appears to have 
reigned from about B. c. 726 to B. c. 697, both reigns of 
Merodach-Baladan would have fallen within the time of his 
rule, (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 502-504.) 

Note (79), p. 119. 
Fragm. Hist. Qr. vol. ii. p. 504 ; Fr. 12. 

Note (80), p. 119. 

Sargon relates, that in his 12th year he made war upon 
Merodach-Baladan, who had been for 12 years king of Baby- 
lon, defeated him, and drove him out of the country. The 
expelled monarch took refuge in Susiana, with a number of 
his partisans ; and Sargon continued to contend against him 
and his allies for three years more at the least. (See the 
author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 474, and 503.) Sennacherib 
says, that immediately after his accession he invaded Baby- 
lonia, defeated and expelled Merodach-Baladan, and placed 
Belib over the land as ruler. (Ibid. p. 476 ; Fox Talbot's 
Assyrian Texts, pp. 1-2.) 

Note (81), p. 119. 
The Babylonian Gods may be to a great extent identified 
with the heavenly bodies. San or Sansi is the Sun ; Hurki f 
the Moon ; Neho is Mercury ; Ishtar, Venus ; Nergal, Mars ; 
Merodach, Jupiter ; and probably Nin (or Bar) Saturn. (See 
the Essay of Sir H. Bawlinson on the Assyrian and Baby- 
lonian religious systems, in the first volume of the author's 
Herodotus, Essay x. pp. 584-642.) The dedication of the 
great temple at Borsippa to the Seven Spheres shows a 
similar spirit. Mr. Loftus has found that the temple plat- 



Lect. IV.] NOTES. 347 

forms are so placed that their angles exactly face the four 
cardinal points, which seems to be a sufficient proof that they 
were used for astronomical purposes. (See his Chaldcea and 
Susiana, ch. xii. pp. 128.) On the astronomical skill of the 
Babylonians, see Herod, ii. 109 ; Simplicius ad Aristot. Be 
Casio, ii. p. 123 ; Pliny, Hist. Nat. vii. 56 ; Vitruvius, ix. 9 ; &c. 

Note ( 82 ), p. 120. 
Berosus said : 'Afcovcras h' 6 irarrfp avrov (sc. Na/3oz/%oSovo- 
cropov) Na/3o7raXdcrcrapo$ on 6 reray/mevo^ aarpdrrns ev ry 
Klyvirrcp /cat tols irepl Svptav rr]v koiXvv teal rrjv <PoiVLfcnv 
T07T069 diroardrr\^ avrov yeyovev, ov Swd/Aevos avrbs en /ca/co- 
iraOelv, crvcrTrjcras tw vlco Na{3ov%ohovoo-6pcp ovn ev rjXiicia 
/jiepr) nva T7J$ hvvd/j,eco<;, e^eirefju^ev err avrov. Xvfifjulifas he 
Nay8of%o8o^o<Jopo? rco diroardry teal irapara^d/jievo^ avrov re 
e/epdrvcre kclL rrjv ywpav etc ravrns rr}$ dp^r)? vtto rrjv avrov 
ftaaikeiav eiroirjaaro . . . AlaObfJievo^ he fjuer ov ttoXvv yjpbvov 
rr)v rov irarpbs reXevrr)v Na{3ov)(ohov6o~opo<$, fcal Karacrrrjcra^ 
ra /car At 7 v it rov nrpdyfiara teal rrjv Xoarr)v %copav, teal rovs 
alxfiaXwrovs 'lovhalwv re teal ^oivUcov Ka\%vpcov /col rcov 
Kar Klyvirrov eOvcov crvvrd^as rial rcov cplXcov . . . dvafca/uLL^ecv 
eh rrjv J$a/3vXcoviav, avrbs opfjurjeras bXtyoarb^ hid t?)? ipr/fxov 
rrapaylverai eh HafivX&va. (Ap. Joseph. Ant. Jud. x. 11.) 

Note (83), p. 120. 
See Josephus, Contra Apion. i. 21 ; UpoaOrjaco he icai t<z? 
rcov <&oivl/ccov dvaypacpds' ov yap irapaXeirrreov rcov dirohei^ecov 
rrjv irepiovtrlav. "Ecrrt he roiavrrj rcov yjpbvcov rj fcarapiO/nrjcris' 
"'EttI JZfflcofidXov rov /SacriXeco? eiroXiopfcrjcre Naj3ov%ohovo- 
cropos rrjv Tvpov err errj rpio-Kaihefca." 

Note ( 84 ), p. 120. 
In continuation of the passage cited in note 81, Berosus 
said : YiapaXajBcov he ra rrpdyjiara hioi/covjieva virb rcov XaX- 
halcov koX hiarrjpov/jievrjv rrjv jBatriXeiav virb rov ^eXrlarov 
avrcov, fcvpievaas oXoicXrjpov rrjs irarpi/crj^ dpyrjs, rots fiev 
alyjxaXcoroi^ irapayevofjuevois crvvera^ev drroiKias ev Tot? eirirrj- 
heiordrois rrjs J$a/3vXcovla<; roirot^ dirohel^ai. 

Note (85), p. 121. 
The chief chronological difficulty which meets us is con- 
nected with the reign of Hezekiah. Scripture places no more 



348 NOTES. ■ [Lect. IV. 

than eight years between the fall of Samaria and the first 
invasion of Judaea by Sennacherib (2 Kings xviii. 9 and 1 3). 
The monuments place at least 18 years between the two 
events ; for Sargon says he took Samaria in his first year, 
and then gives his annals for 15 years, while Sennacherib 
says that he attacked Hezekiah and took his fenced cities in 
his third year. Ptolemy's Canon, taken in conjunction with 
the monuments, raises the interval to 22 years. According 
to this, if the capture of Samaria was in Hezekiah's sixth 
year, the accession of Sennacherib must have fallen in his 
25th, and the first attack of Sennacherib in his 27th year. 
But our present text of Kings (2 Kings, xviii. 9) and of Isaiah 
(xxxvi. 1) calls it his 14th year. I have suggested elsewhere 
that the original number may have been altered under the 
idea that the invasion of Sennacherib and the illness of Heze- 
kiah were synchronous, whereas the expression " in those 
days " was used by the sacred writers with a good deal of 
latitude. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 479, note 2 .) 
Minor difficulties are the synchronism of Tirhakah with 
Hezekiah, and of So with Hoshea, of which 1 have already 
spoken. See notes 60 and 65. 

Note (86), p. 121. 
Vortrage ilber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 126 ; p. 106, E. T. 

Note (87), p. 121. 

A few instances may be noted under each head, as specimens 
of the sort of agreement. 

1. Geographic, (a) In 2 Kings xvii. 6 (compare xviii. 11) 
it is said that the captive Israelites were placed by the con- 
queror " at Halah and Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the 
cities of the Medes." Misled by the last clause, various com- 
mentators have struggled vainly to find Habor, Halah, and 
Gozan in or near Media. (See Bochart, Geograph. Sac. iii. 
14; Kitto, Bill. Cyclopaedia, ad voc. 'Gozan;' Keil on 2 Kings 
xvii. 6 ; pp. 54-58, E. T. ; &c.) But this attempt is quite 
unnecessary. The true position of Gozan may be gathered 
from 2 Kings xix. 12, where it is coupled with Haran, the 
well-known city of Mesopotamia. In this locality all the 
names may be found, not only in old geographers, but even 
at the present day. The whole tract east of Harran about 



Lect. IV.] 



NOTES. 



349 



Nisibis was anciently called Gauzanitis or Gozan (Ptolemy, 
v. 18), of which the better known name Mygdonia is a cor- 
ruption v ; the great river of this tract was the Aborrhas or 
Chaboras (Habor) ; and adjoining it (Ptol. 1. s. c.) was a dis- 
trict called Chalcitis (Halah). Of this district a probable 
trace remains in the modern Gla, a large mound in these 
parts marking a ruined city (Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 312, 
note) ; while the river is still known as the Khabour, and the 
country as Kaushan. w The author of Chronicles (1 Chron. v. 
26) adds Hara to the places mentioned in Kings, which is 
clearly Haran, or Harran, known to the Romans as Carrhce. 
Undoubtedly the bulk of the Israelites were settled in this 
country, while Sargon selected a certain number to colonize 
his new cities in Media, (b) In 2 Kings xvii. 24, Cuthah, 
Ava, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, are mentioned together as 
cities under the Assyrian dominion, and as furnishing the 
colonists who replaced the transplanted Israelites. Of these 
Hamath is familiar to us, but of the other cities little has 
been known till recently. "Die Lage von Cutha," says 
Winer,* "ist aber vollig ungewiss." And so Keil y ; "The 
situation of Cuthah cannot be determined with certainty." 
The discovery, however, of an ancient Babylonian city of the 
name, at the distance of about 15 miles from Babylon itself, 
where, moreover, Nergal was especially worshipped (2 Kings 
xvii. 30), seems to remove all doubt on the subject. Cuthah 
was most certainly the city whose ruins are now called 
Ibrahim. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 632 ; and 
vol. ii. p. 587.) With almost equal confidence may we pro- 
nounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it 
is most probably a Mesopotamian town, " von welcher Jceine 
Spur in den alten Schriftstellern oder in der heutigen orien- 
talischen Topographie ubrig geblieben ist z . Ava (MW), 
or Ivah (JWy), is a city dedicated to the god Hea (Nep- 



v Mygdonia represents Gozan, 
with the adjectival or participial D 
prefixed. The Greek writers always 
substituted their 8 for the Semitic 
z. Hence Gaza became CacZytis, 
Achzib became Ecdippa, the river 
Zab became the Diaba ; and so 
M'gozan became Mygcfon. 



w So at least Winer says, but I 
do not know on what authority. 
(Realworterbucli ad voc. Gosan.) 

x Bealworterbuch, vol. i. p. 237. 

y See Keil on 2 Kings xvii. 24 ; 
vol. ii. p. 67, E. T. 

1 Bealworterbuch, vol. i. p. 118. 



350 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 

tune), which was on the Euphrates at the extreme northern 
limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudical writers 
Thi (TV), or with an epithet Ihi-dakira (Nl^pTiT), by 
Herodotus Is ("I?), by the Egyptions 1st, by the Turks and 
Arabs of the present day Hit. The first corruption of the 
name may be traced in the Ahava (NTfK?) of Ezra (viii. 15, 
21 ; compare the river Is of Herodotus), where the Jews en- 
camped on their way from Babylon to Jerusalem. (See the 
remarks of Sir H. Kawlinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. 
i. p. 602.) Sepharvaim has less completely baffled the geo- 
graphers, who have seen that it must be identical with the 
Sippara or Sipphara of Ptolemy (v. 18) and the 7ro/U? Smttto- 
pr/vcov of Abydenus (Fr. 9). See Winer and Kitto ad voc. 
They have not, however, been able to fix the site ; which the 
Inscriptions show to have been at Mosaib, a town on the 
Euphrates between Hit and Babylon. Nor have they given 
any account of the dual form, Sepharwm (D?Y"]|p) ; which 
is explained by the fact, noted in the Inscriptions, that the 
city was partly on the right, partly on the left bank of the 
Euphrates, (c) With Sepharvaim are connected, in 2 "Kings 
xix. 13, the two cities of Hena and Ivah. It is implied that 
they had recently been united under one king : we must seek 
them therefore in the same neighbourhood. As Ivah, like 
Sepharvaim, was upon the Euphrates above Babylon ; and as 
the towns in this tract have always been clustered along the 
banks of the streams, we must look for Hena (Heb. yyn ', 
LXX 'Avd) in a similar position. Now on the Euphrates in 
this region is found in the Inscriptions an important town, 
Andh or Anat ; which has always borne nearly the same 
name, and which is even now known as Anah. Hena is thus 
identified almost to a certainty. 

2. Beligious. (a) The worship of Baal and Astarte by the 
Phoenicians, almost to the exclusion of other gods, is strongly 
suggested by the whole history from Judges to Ahaz. (See 
Jud. x. 6 ; 1 Kings xi. 5, xvi. 31, &c.) A marked confirma- 
tion of this exclusive, or nearly exclusive, worship is found in 
the names of the Tyrian kings and judges, which, like those 
of the Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs, comprehend 
almost always a divine element. Their names, so far as they 
are known, run as follows — Abibaal, Hiram, Baleazai, Abdas- 



Lect. IV.] 



NOTES. 



351 



tartus, Astartus, Aserymus, Pheles, ^tYibaal, Balezar, Matgen, 
Pygmalion, Elulseus, ~Ettli-baal II., Baal, ~Ecnibaal, Clielbes, 
Abbarus, Mytgon, Bal-aiov, Qemstartus, Merbal, and 
Hiram II. Further confirmation is derivable from the few 
authentic notices of the religion which remain, as from the 
Fragments of Dius and Menander, where these two are the 
only deities mentioned. a (b) It has been already noticed that 
Nergal, who is said to have been worshipped by the Cuthites 
in Samaria (2 Kings xvii. 30), is found in the Inscriptions to 
have been the special god of Cutha. (c) So too it appears 
from them that the city of Sepharvaim was under the spe- 
cial protection of two deities, conjointly worshipped, Shamas 
or San, the Sun, and his wife Quia or Anunit. Here we have 
evidently the Adrammelech and Anammelech of 2 Kings xvii. 
31 ; Adrammelech, " the Fire-king," and Anammelech, 
" Queen Anunit " — the latter name being assimilated to the 
former with insolent carelessness. (See Sir H. Rawlinson in 
the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 611, 612.) (d) If a satisfac- 
tory explanation cannot be given from Babylonian mythology 
of Succoth-Benoth, Nibhaz, and Tartak (2 Kings xvii. 30, 31), 
it is probably because they are not really the names of Baby- 
lonian gods. The first seems to mean " tents of daughters," 
or small tabernacles in which were contained images of 
female deities. The second and third are most likely scorn- 
ful modifications of certain Babylonian names, which I should 
suspect to have been Nebo and Tir — the latter a title by 
which Nebo was sometimes called. Or they may possibly be 
gods which have yet to be discovered. 

3. Manners, customs, &c. (a) The whole character of the 
Assyrian wars, as represented in Kings and Chronicles, is in 
close accordance with what we gather from the Inscriptions. 
The numerical force of their armies, the direction of them by 
the monarch in person, the multitude of their chariots (2 
Kings xix. 23), their abundant cavalry (2 Kings xviii. 23), 
their preference of the bow as a weapon b (ib. xix. 32), the 

a Mr. Kenrick gives the Phoeni- Tyrian Hercules) was only another 

cians three " national deities," As- name for Baal, 

tarte, Belus, Hercules. (Phoenicia, b This appears sufficiently on the 

p. 345). But Movers has shown sculptures ; but it is even more 

satisfactorily that Melcarth (the strikingly evinced in the language 



352 NOTES. [Lect. IV. 

manner of their sieges by " casting banks " against the walls 
of cities c (ibid.), — and again the religious enthusiasm with 
which the wars were carried on, — the antagonism maintained 
between the Assyrian gods and those of the invaded countries 
(2 Kings xviii. 33, 34, &c), and the practice of carrying off 
as plunder, and therefore probably of melting down, the idols 
of the various nations (2 Kings xix. 18), are all distinctly 
marked in the sacred history, and might be abundantly illus- 
trated from the monuments. 4 (b) No less harmonious with 
Scripture is the representation which the monuments give of 
the Assyrian political system. Something has been already 
said on tins point. (Lecture III. pp. 81-83.) The empire 
is one made up of a number of petty kingdoms. (" Are not 
my princes altogether kings ?" Is. x. 8.) Absorption of the 
conquered districts is not aimed at, but only the extension of 
suzerainty, and government through native tributary monarchs. 
Eebellion is promptly punished, and increased tribute is its 
natural consequence. (2 Kings xviii. 14.) Finally, trans- 
plantation is made use of when other means fail — sometimes 
on a larger, sometimes on a smaller scale, as the occasion 
requires. 6 (c) The continued power of the Hittites, the 
number of their princes, and their strength in chariots, winch 
appears from 1 Kings x. 29, and again remarkably from 
2 Kings vii. 6, is strikingly confirmed by the Black Obelisk 
inscription, where we find twelve kings of the Khatti, allied 
with Syria and Hamath, and fighting against the Assyrians 
with a force whose chief strength seems to be chariots. Many 
similar points of minute agreement might be adduced, but 
this note has, I fear, already extended itself beyond the 
patience of most readers. 

of the Inscriptions, where the phrase | bricks, earth, and branches of 
which has to be translated " killed | trees." 



in battle" is constantly " killed with 
arrows." (See Dull. Univ. Mag. 
No. 250, p. 423.) 

c See Layard's Nineveh and 
Babylon, p. 149. Describing a bas- 
relief of Sennacherib's, he says, 
" Against the fortifications had been 
thrown up as many as ten banks or 
mounds, compactly built of stones, 



d See the Great Inscription of 
Tiglath Pileser I., pp. 28, 30, 38, 
&c; Bull. Univ. Mag. No. 250, 
pp. 423, 324 ; Fox Talbot's Assyrian 
Texts, pp. 1, 3, 4, 11, 22, &c. Com- 
pare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. 
p. 495. 

e See the author's Herodotus, vol. 
i. p. 493. 



Lect. V.] NOTES. 353 



LECTURE V. 



Note ( 1 ), p. 124. 
So Ewald, Die Propheien des Alien Bundes, p. 560. 

Note (2), p. 124. 
This is the theory of De Wette (Einleitung, § 253, p. 342 ; 
vol. ii. p. 485, E. T.), who bases the view on the passages 
of Ezekiel, where Daniel is so highly commended. See below, 
note 10. 

Note ( 3 ), p. 124. 

See the statements of Jerome concerning Porphyry in 
the preface to his Comment, in Daniel (Op. vol. hi. pp. 1073, 
1074. 

Note (4), p. 125. 

It is urged by Ewald (Propheten des Alt. Dundee, p. 565) ; 
by Knobel, Prophetismus der Hebrder, ii. p. 401 ; by Strauss 
(Leben Jesu, § 13 ; vol. i. p. 56, E. T.) ; by De Wette (Ein- 
leitung, § 255 b, p. 346) ; and by Mr. Theodore Parker 
(Translation of De Wette, vol. ii. pp. 491 and 501.) Hence 
Auberlen observes with justice, " The true argument of all 
others, even in modern criticism, lies in the dogmatic doubt 
of the reality of miracles and predictions." (Prophecies of 
Daniel, Introduction, p. 10, E. T. f ) And Stuart, " Nearly 
all the arguments employed to disprove the genuineness of 
Daniel, have their basis, more or less directly, in the assump- 
tion, that miraculous events are impossibilities. Of course, 
all the extraordinary occurrences related in the book of 
Daniel, and all the graphic predictions of events, are, under 
the guidance of this assumption, stricken from the list of pro- 
babilities, and even of possibilities." (History and Defence of 
the Canon, § 4, pp. 110, 111.) 



f The Prophecies of Daniel and 
the Revelation of St. John viewed 
in their mutual relation, by C. A. 



Auberlen, Ph. D. Translated by 
the Rev. A. Saphir ; Edinburgh, 
Clark, 1856. 

2 A 



354 



NOTES. 



[Lect. V. 



Note (5), p. 125. 

Undoubtedly a peculiar character attaches to the prophecies 
of Daniel, if they are compared with those of the other pro- 
phets. As Auberlen observes, " his prophecies abound, above 
all the rest, in historical and political detail/' {Prophecies of 
Daniel, Introduction, p. 3, E. T.) But to make this an ob- 
jection to the authenticity of the Book is to assume, either 
that we have an a priori knowledge of the nature and limits 
of prophetical inspiration, or else that the law of such inspira- 
tion may be gathered inductively from the other Scriptures, 
and then applied to exclude the claims of a Book which has 
as much external sanction as any other. But induction should 
be from all the instances ; and to exclude the Book of Daniel 
by a law drawn from the rest of Scripture, is first to assume 
that it is not Scripture, and then to prove that it is not by 
means of that assumption. We are quite ignorant beforehand 
to what extent it might please the Omniscient to communi- 
cate to any of His creatures the knowledge of the future, 
which He possesses in perfection ; and we have no means of 
determining the question but by a careful study of all the 
facts which the Bible sets before us. We have no right to 
assume that there will be a uniform law, much less that we 
shall be able to discover it. It is a principle of the Divine 
Economy that " there is a time for every thing ;" and the 
minute exactness which characterises some of the Prophecies 
of Daniel may have been adapted to peculiar circumstances 
in the history of God's people at some particular time s , 
or have otherwise had some special object which we cannot 
fathom. 

Note ( 6 ), p. 125. 

See Hengstenberg, Authentie des Daniel, p. 303, et seq. 
The alternate use of Hebrew and Chaldee, which is the main 
linguistic peculiarity of Daniel, is only natural at a time when 
both languages were currently spoken by the Jews ; and is 
only found in writings of about this period, as in Ezra and. 



s Auberlen thinks that the minute- 
ness, which is chiefly in chs. viii. 
and xi., was " necessary to prepare 
the people for the attacks and artful 
machinations of Antiochus," and 



that " the glorious struggle of the 
Maccabees, so far as it was a pure 
and righteous one, was a fruit of 
this book." (pp. 54, 55.) 



Lect. V.] NOTES. 355 

Jeremiah. De Wette's answer to this argument, that both 
languages were known to the learned Jews at a later date 
(Mnleitung, § 255 c. p. 349), is a specimen of the weak 
grounds on which men are content to rest a foregone conclu- 
sion. The Hebrew Scriptures were not written for the 
learned ; and no instances at all can be found of the alternate 
use (as distinct from the occurrence of Chaldaisms in Hebrew, 
or Hebraisms in Chaldee), excepting at the time of the 
Captivity. 

Note (7 ), p. 125. 

I have here followed the ordinary tradition, which rests on 
the authority of Aristeas, Philo, Justin Martyr, Josephus, 
Epiphanius, &c. It is questioned, however, if the Greek ver- 
sion of Daniel was made so early. The book of Esther, 
according to the subscription to it, was not translated till the 
fourth year of Ptolemy Philometor, b. c. 178 or 177, a year 
or two before the accession of Epiphanes. And it is possible 
that Daniel may have been translated still later. (See Home's 
Introduction, &c, vol. iii. p. 44.) 

If the argument in the text is weakened by this admis- 
sion, it may receive the following important accessions : — 
(1.) Passages of Daniel are referred to by Jesus the son of 
Sirach, who must have written as early as b. c. 180, or before 
the time of Epiphanes h . (See Ecclus. xvii. 17, compared 
with Dan. x. 20, 21, xii. 1 ; and Ecclus. x. 8, compared with 
Dan. viii. 23, &c.) And (2.) Daniel's prophecies were shown 
to Alexander the Great in the year b. c. 332, and inclined 
him to treat the Jews with special favour. (Joseph. Ant. Jud. 
xi. 8.) The authority of Josephus as to the main fact is not 
discredited by the circumstance, that " the narrative of Jose- 
phus is not credible in all of its particulars." (De Wette, 
Einleitung § 255 c. p. 349.) 

Note ( 8 ), p. 125. 

The fundamental arguments in favour of this are, 1, the 

constant representation of Daniel as the author from ch. vii. 

to the end ; and, 2, our Lord's words " the abomination of 

desolation, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet " (Matt, xxiv. 15.) 

h Even De Wette admits this. I erhalten wir als Abfassungzeit d. J. 
(Einleitung, § 316, p. 419. " So | 180. v. Chr.") 

2 a 2 



356 " NOTES. [Lect. V. 

De Wette's arguments to the contrary, besides those noted 
in the text, seem to be the following — 1. The miracles are 
grotesque. 2. The apocalyptic tone is unlike that of the 
prophets belonging to this period. 3. Honourable mention 
is made of Daniel himself in the book. 4. The language is 
corrupt, containing Persian and Greek words. 5. The book 
is placed by the Jews among the Hagiographa, and is there- 
fore later than Malachi. 6, The angelology, christology, and 
asceticism, mark a late date K Of these the first and last 
may be simply denied ; the second is reduced to a shadow by 
De Wette himself when he admits that the style of Ezekiel's 
and Zechariah's prophesying is not very unlike (" nicht ganz 
fremd") Daniel's; the third is an objection equally to the 
Pentateuch, the Gospel of St. John, and some of St. Paul's 
Epistles, and rests merely upon an a priori conception of how 
prophets should write, not borne out by experience; the 
fourth is not urged with any confidence, since it is allowed to 
be "certainly possible that the Greek words may have been 
known to the Babylonians at the time" (p. 347) ; and if so, 
a fortiori, the Persian words ; and the fifth argument, if it 
has any weight at all, would make the Book of Job, and the 
Proverbs of Solomon, later than Malachi ! No wonder Pro- 
fessor Stuart should say — "Beyond the objections founded 
on the assumption, that miracles and predictions are impos- 
sibilities, there is little to convince an enlightened and well- 
balanced critical reader, that the book is supposititious." 
(History and Defence of the Canon, p. 111.) 

Note ( 9 ), p. 125. 
See Dan. i. 3. Josephus says that Daniel was of the seed 
of Zedekiah. (Ant. Jud. x. 10.) 

Note ( 10 ), p. 125. 
Ewald contends, that the Daniel commended by Ezekiel 
must have been an ancient hero, like Job and Noah (Pro- 
pheten des Alt. Bundes, p. 560), of whose wisdom and right- 
eousness he knew from some sacred book, with which both 
himself and the Jews of his time were well acquainted. We 
are not told what has become of this book, or what proof there 
1 Ibid. § 255, pp. 346, 347. 



Lect. V.] 



NOTES. 



357 



is of its existence. Nor is it explained how this "ancient 
hero " comes not to be mentioned in the historical Scriptures 
at all, or by any writer earlier than Ezekiel. Doubtless if we 
had no means of knowing to the contrary, we should naturally 
have supposed from Ezek. xiv. 14 and 20, that Daniel was an 
ancient historical personage in Ezekiel's time, having lived 
between Noah and Job ; but as this is impossible from the 
absolute silence of the historical books, Ezekiel's mention of 
him at all can only be accounted for by the fact that he was 
the great Jew of the day, and that his wisdon and virtue were 
known to those for whom Ezekiel wrote — the Chaldoean Jews k , 
be it remembered, (Ezek. i. 2, 3,) — not historically, or from 
any book, but from personal acquaintance and common 
rumour. Why Daniel precedes Job, is still a question. Per- 
haps, because Daniel and Noah are actual men, while Job is 
not ? Or because the two former are viewed as Jews, Job as 
a Gentile ? 

Note (11), p. 125. 

Mnleitung, § 255 a, p. 344 ; (" b vo11 Unwahrscheinlichkeiten, 
und selbst historischer Unrichtigkeiten, dergleichen sonst 
kein prophetisches Biich des Alt. Test, enthalt.") Compare 
p. 349. 

Note ( 12 ), p. 126. 

See above, note 87 on Lecture IV. Sargon seems to 
have been the first king who introduced this practice on a 
large scale. He was followed by Sennacherib (Eox Talbot's 
Assyrian Texts, pp. 3, 4, 7, &c.) ; and Esarhaddon (ibid. pp. 
11 and 17.) 

Note ( 13 ), p. 126. 

See Herod, iv. 181 ; v. 15 ; vi. 20 and 119 ; Ctes. Pers. § 
9 ; Arrian. Exp. Alex. iii. 48 ; and compare the author's Hero- 
dotus, vol. ii. pp. 563, 564. The practice continues to modern 
times. (See Chardin's Voyage en Perse, vol. iii. p. 292 ; and 
Ferrier's Caravan Journeys, p. 395.) 



k It has been usual to regard 
Ezekiel as .writing in Mesopotamia, 
the Chebar being supposed to be the 
Khabour. But we have no right 
to assume the identity of the words 
nn3 and "Tan. The Chebar is 



probably the Nahr Malcha, or Eoyal 
Canal, the great ("113) cutting of 
Nebuchadnezzar. See the article on 
'Chebar' in Smith's Biblical Dic- 
tionary. 



358 NOTES. [Lect. V. 

Note ( 14 ), p. 126. 
See Lecture IV. note 84. 

Note (15), p. 126. 

See the Fragments of these writers in the Fragmenta Hist. 

Gfr. vol. ii. pp. 506, 507 ; and vol. iv. p. 284. Compare with 

the expression in Daniel, " Is not this great Babylon which I 

have built ?" (Dan. iv. 30), the statement of Berosus. No- 

fioV)(phov6(TOpO<; . . .TTjV T6 V7T d PX 0V °" av ^f ^PXV^ TToXiV 

av a k a iv l eras real erepav /caraxapLcrd/jLevos, irpbs to 
/jirjfceTL BvvacrOac tovs iroXiopKoxwras rbv 7rora/jLbv dvacrTpe<pov- 
ra? eirl rrjv iroXuv Karacricevd^eiv, vnrepeftdXeTO rpels /juev rrjs 
evBov 7ro\e&)? irepi^okovs, rpets Be rrjs e^co. Both statements 
are confirmed by the fact that nine-tenths of the inscribed 
bricks from the site of Babylon are stamped with Nebuchad- 
nezzar's name. 

Note ( 16 ), p. 127. 

Ap. Euseb. Prcep. Mv. ix. 41, pp. 441, 442. Mera Be, 
Xeyerat Trpbs XaXSalcov, co? dva/3a<; eirl ra ftacriArjia /caracrx 6 ' 
6ei7] 6ea> oreco Br}, (p>6ey%dfjLevo<; Be elirev, Ouro? eyoo N<x/3ou/to- 
Bpoaopos, <w l$a{3v\(ovioi, rrjv /jLeXKovaav vplv 7rpoayyeXX,oy 
av/ii(f)opr)V . . , f/ H£et UeparjS rjfilovos, tolctlv v/juerepoicn Balfioai 
Xpew/JLevos <iv\x\AdxoiG~iV eird^ei Be BovXocrvvnv' ov Br) avvaurios 
earai M.rjBr)s, to 'Aaavptov avyr)iia . . . f O ixev deair la as ira- 
paxpy/Aa r)(j)dvi<TTO. 

Note (17), p. 127. 

Beros. ap. Joseph. Contr. Apionem, i. 20 ; Polyhist. ap. Euseb. 
Chronica, i. 5, § 3, p. 21 ; Ptol. Mag. Syntax, v. 14. 

Note ( 18 ), p. 127. 

These tablets are commonly orders on the imperial trea- 
sury, dated in the current year of the reigning monarch, like 
modern Acts of Parliament. They give a minimum for the 
length of each monarch's reign, but of course by the nature 
of the case they cannot furnish a maximum. Still, where 
they are abundant, as in NebuchadnezzaVs case, they raise a 
strong probability that the highest number found was not 
much exceeded. 

Note ( 19 ), p. 127. 

The eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar being the first of 
Jehoiachin's captivity (2 Kings xxiv. 12), we must place the 



Lect. V. NOTES. 359 

beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign seven years earlier ; and 
the 37th of the captivity being the first of Evil-Merodach 
(ibid. xxv. 27), the 36th would be Nebuchadnezzar's last com- 
plete year. Now 36 +7 = 43. 

Note ( 20 ), p. 128. 
So De Wette (Mnleitung, § 255 a ; p. 345 c), who quotes 
von Lengerke, Hitzig, and others, as agreeing with him. 
Ewald also compares Daniel to Judith, on account of its con- 
fusing together various times and countries. (Propheten des 
Alt. Bundles, p. 562.) 

Note (21), p. 128. 
De Wette gives the first place among his " historical inac- 
curacies " to the " unrichtige Vorstellungen von den Weisen 
Babylons," and the "undenkbare Aufnahme Daniels unter 
dieselben" ; the second to the " Erwahnung der persischen 
Satrapen-Einrichtung unter Nebuchadnezer und Darius 
Medus." (Einleitung, 1. s. c.) 

Note ( 22 ), p. 128. 
The word which we translate "magicians" in Dan. i. 20, 
ii. 2, 10, &c, is chartummim, or khartummim (D^DD^n), 
which is derived from cheret, or kheret (tD^n), "a graving- 
tool." (See Buxtorf's Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum, ad 
voc.) Babylonian documents are sometimes written on clay, 
where the character has been impressed, before the clay was 
baked, by a tool with a triangular point ; but they are also 
frequently on stone — large pebbles from the Euphrates's 
bed — in which case they have been engraved with a fine 
chisel. 

Note (23), p. 128. 
The Chaldseans in Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and 
even Ezekiel, are simply the inhabitants of Chaldsea, which 
is the name applied to the whole country thereof Babylon is 
the capital. But in Daniel the Chaldaeans are a special set 
of persons at Babylon, having a " learniog " and a " tongue " 
of their own (Dan. i. 4), and classed with the magicians, 
astrologers, &c. Strabo notes both senses of the term (xvi. i. 
§ 6) ; and Berosus seems to use the narrower and less com- 
mon one, when he speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as finding on his 



36'0 NOTES. [Lect. V. 

arrival at Babylon after his father's death, that affairs were 
being conducted by the Chaldaeans, and that their chief was 
keeping the throne vacant for hirn, (UapaXa^cbv Be ra 
7rpdy/jLaTa Sooc/covfieva viro rcov XaXSalcov k<u Starr) povjjbevrjv 
rr)v fiacrikeiav vtto rod ftekrlaTov avrcov, /cvpLevaas k. t. X. 
Fr. 14), while elsewhere (as in Frs. 1, § 1 ; 5, 6, 11, &c.) he 
employs the generic and more usual sense. Compare Herod, 
i. 181, and vii. 63. The Inscriptions show that the Chaldseans 
(Kaldi) belonged to the primitive Scythic inhabitants, and 
that the old astronomical and other learning of the Babylo- 
nians continued to be in this language during the later 
Semetic times. (See Sir H. Kawlinson's note in the author's 
Herodotus, vol. i. p. 319, note 8 .) 

Note ( 24 ), p. 129. 

Compare an article on the Chaldaeans in Smith's Biblical 
Dictionary. 

Note ( 25 ), p. 129. 

See above, Lecture IV., note 82. 

Note ( 28 ), p. 130. 

I do not intend to assert that this was the case. We have 
no satisfactory proof that the Babylonians ever approached 
more nearly to the Satrapial system than by the appointment 
in exceptional cases of a native " governor " in lieu of an here- 
ditary king, as in the case of Gedaliah. The maintenance of 
Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, on the throne of Judaea 
seems to indicate the general character of their government. 
It may even be suspected that Berosus's. " Satrap of Egypt 
and Syria " was really Pharaoh-Necho, whose position Baby- 
lonian vanity represented in that light. The LXX translate 
Daniel's "princes" (N'QSrnttfnN) by aarpaTrac, but this 
cannot be regarded as an argument of much weight. Baby- 
lonian historical inscriptions are so scanty that we can derive 
little assistance from them towards ' determining the question. 

Note ( 27 ), p. 130. 
The extent of the kingdom (Dan. iv. 22), the absolute 
power of the king (ib. ii. 5, 13, 48, iii. 29, &c), the influence 
of the Chaldseans (ib. ii. 2, iii. 8, &c), the idolatrous charac- 
ter of the religion, the use of images of gold (ib. iii. 1 ; com- 



Lect. V.] NOTES. 361 

pare Herod, i. 183), are borne out by profane writers, and (so 
far as their testimony can be brought to bear) by the monu- 
ments. The building (rebuilding) of Babylon (Dan. iv. 30) 
by Nebuchadnezzar, is confirmed in every way. (See above, 
note 15.) Again, there is a curious notice in Daniel of a cer- 
tain peculiarity which may be remarked in Nebuchadnezzar's 
religion, viz. his special devotion to a particular god. Nebu- 
chadnezzar throughout his inscriptions presents himself to us 
as a devotee of Merodach. ' Merodach, his lord ' is the chief 
— almost the sole object of his worship and praise — invoca- 
tions, prayers, and thanksgivings are addressed to him and 
him only. (See Sir EL Kawlinson's remarks in the author's 
Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 628, 629, and compare the Inscription 
of Nebuchadnezzar in the same work, vol. ii. pp. 585-587.) 
This peculiarity is casually and incidentally noticed by Daniel, 
when he says that Nebuchadnezzar carried- the sacred vessels 
of the temple " into the land of Shinar, to the house of his 
god ; and brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his 
god." (i. 2.) 

Note ( 28 ), p. 130. 
See his Beitrdge zur Mnleitung in das Alt. Test. p. 105. 
Hengstenberg has on his side the authority of Eusebius, who 
so understood the passage {Chronica, i. 10, p. 21) ; but Euse- 
bius's arguments appear to me very weak. 

Note ( 29 ), p. 131. 
See Sir H. Kawlinson's translation of the Standard Inscrip- 
tion in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 585-587. The 
passage to which reference is made in , the text runs as fol- 
lows — " Four years (?)... the seat of my kingdom in the city 
. . . which . . . did. not rejoice my heart. In all my dominions 
I did not build a high place of power ; the precious treasures 
of my kingdom I did not lay up. In Babylon, buildings for 
myself and for the honour of my kingdom I did not lay out. 
In the worship of Merodach my lord, the joy of my heart (?), 
in Babylon the city of his sovereignty and the seat of my 
empire, I did not sing his praises (?), and I did not furnish 
his altars (with victims), nor did I clear out the canals." 
Other negative clauses follow. From this literal rendering 
of the passage, only one or two words of which are at all 



362 NOTES. [Lect. V. 

doubtful, the reader may judge for himself to what event in 
his life it is likely that the monarch alludes. He should per- 
haps bear in mind that the whole range of cuneiform litera- 
ture presents no similar instance of a king putting on record 
his own inaction. 

Note" (30), p. 132. 
Berosus ap. Joseph. Contr. Ap. i. 20 : NafiovxoSovoo-opo? 
fxev ovv /juera tov ap^aaOai tov 7rpo€cpr)fievov re^ovs ifxireacbv 
eh appcoarlav [JbeTrjXkd^aTo tov ftiov, {3€{3aai\evfca)<; err) rea- 
crapd/covra rpla. T779 Se fiacriXelas Kvpios iyevero 6 vlb<s avrov 
~Ev.ei\fjLapd$ovxo<>. Compare Abyden. ap. Euseb. Chron. i. 
10. p. 28 ; and Polyhist. ap. eund. i. 5, § 3 ; p. 21. 

Note (31), p. 132. 

Berosus continues after the passage above quoted — 05to?, 
irpoara^ twv Trpajfidrcov dvo/jbcos /cat daeXyojs, eTrifiov- 
~hev6el<; . . . dvrjpkOir]. 

Note (32), p. 132. 

The Babylonian name is read as Nergal-shar-uzur ; the 
Hebrew form ("l^NHttT^"^) is exactly expressed by our 
Authorized Version, which gives Nergal-shar-ezer. The Greek 
renderings are far inferior to the Hebrew. Berosus, as 
reported by Josephus (1. s. c), called the king Neriglissoor ; 
Polyhistor called him Neglissar (Euseb. Chron. i. 5 ; p. 21) ; 
Abydenus, Niglissar (Armen. Euseb.) or Neriglissar (Euseb. 
Prcep. JEv. ix. 41), Ptolemy {Mag. Synt. 1. s. c.) Nerigasso- 
lassar. 

Note (33), p. 133. 

The Babylonian vocalisation somewhat modifies the word, 
which is read in the Inscriptions as Mubu-emga. (See Sir 
H. Kawlinson's note in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 518, 
note 3 .) With this the Hebrew Bab-mag (ycriS) is identical 
in all its consonants ; and there can be no reasonable doubt 
that it is the same term. Gesenius has translated the title 
as " Chief of the' Magi " (Lexicon, p. 388, E. T.) ; but the 
Babylonian word which represents the Persian Magi in the 
Behistun Inscription bears no resemblance at all to the emga 
of this title. Sir H. Bawlinson believes the signification to be 



Lect. V.] NOTES. 363 

" Chief Priest," but holds that there is no reference in it to 
Magism. 

Note ( 34 ), p. 133. 

Abydenus has the form Nabannidochus (ap. Euseb. Chron. i. 
10, p. 28), with which may be compared the Naboandelus 
(probably to be read Naboandechus) of Josephus (Ant. Jud. 
x. 11.) Berosus wrote Nabonnedus (Joseph. Contr. Ap. i. 
20) ; Herodotus, Labynetus (i. 77, 188.) The actual name 
seems to have been Nabu-nahit in Semitic, Nabu-induk in the 
Cushite Babylonian. 

Note (35), p. 133. 

So Josephus (Ant. Jud. 1. s. c.) ; Perizonius ( Orig. Babylon. 
p. 359) ; Heeren, Manual of Ancient History, p. 28, E. T. ; 
Des Vignoles, (Euvres, vol. ii. p. 510, et seq. ; Clinton, F. H. 
vol. ii. pp. 369-371; the authors of I? Art de Verifier les Dates, 
vol. ii. p. 69 ; Winer, Bealworterbuch ad voc. ' Belshazzar ;' 
Kitto, Biblical Cyclopaedia ad voc. eand. ; &c. 

Note ( 36 ), p. 133. 

It has been almost universally concluded, by those who 
have regarded the book of Daniel as authentic, that the Bel- 
shazzar of that book must be identical with one or other of 
the native monarchs known ^from Berosus and Abydenus to 
have occupied the throne between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus. 
Each monarch has been preferred in his turn. Conringius, 
Bouhier, Larcher, Marsham, Hupfeld, Havernick, and others, 
have identified Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach ; Eusebius, 
Syncellus, and Hales, with Neriglissar ; Jackson and Gatterer, 
with Laborosoarchod ; but the bulk of commentators and his- 
torians with Nabonadius. (See the last note.) In every case 
there was the same difficulty in explaining the diversity of 
name, as well as in reconciling the historical facts recorded 
of the monarch preferred with what Scripture tells us of Bel- 
shazzar. On the whole, perhaps, the hypothesis of Conringius 
was the least objectionable. 

Note (37), p. 134. 
So De Wette, Einleitung, § 255 a, p. 345. 



364 NOTES. [Lect. V. 

• Note ( 38 ), p. 134. 

This view was maintained by Sir Isaac Newton. (See his 
Chronology, pp. 323-330.) 

• Note ( 39 ), p. 134. 

Sir H. Kawlinson made this important discovery in the 
year 1854, from docnments obtained at Mugheir, the ancient 
Ur. (See Mr. Loftns's Chaldcea and Susiana, ch. xii. pp. 132, 
133 ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 525.) 

Note (40), p. 135. 
Jehu, though ordinarily called " the son of Nimshi," was 
really his grandson (2 Kings ix. 2.) Merodach-Baladan, " the 
son of Baladan," according to Isaiah (xxxix. 1), is in the In- 
scriptions the son of Yagina. Baladan was probably one of 
his more remote ancestors. In Matt. i. 1, our Blessed Lord 
is called " the Son of David, (who was) the son of Abraham." 

Note (41), p. 135. 
Such marriages formed a part of the state policy of the 
time, and were sought with the utmost avidity. When Zecle- 
kiah's daughters were committed to Geclaliah (Jerem. xli. 10), 
it was undoubtedly that he might marry them, in order (as 
Mr. F. Newmau justly observes 1 ) "to establish for his de- 
scendants a hereditary claim on Jewish allegiance." So 
Amasis married a daughter of Psammetik III. m ; and Atossa 
was taken to wife both by the Pseudo-Smerdis and by Darius, 
the son of Hystaspes, (Herod, iii. 68 and 88.) On the same 
grounds Herod the Great married Mariamne. (See Joseph. 
De Bell. Jud. i. 12, § 3.) An additional reason for suspecting 
that such a marriage as that suggested in the text was actually 
contracted by Nabonadius, is to be found in the fact, which 
may be regarded as certain, that he adopted the name of 
Nebuchadnezzar among his own family names. That he had 
a son so called, is proved by the rise of two pretenders in the 
reign of Darius, who each proclaimed himself to be " Nebu- 
chadnezzar, the son of Nabonadius." (Behistun Inscr. col. i. 
par. 16 ; and col. iii. par. 13.) 

1 Hebrew Monarchy, p. 361. 

m Wilkinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 387. 



Lect. V.] NOTES. 365 

Note (42), p. 135. 

Syncellus, Chronograph, p. 438, B ; Apoc. Dan. xiii. ad fin. ; 
Jackson, Chronolog. Antiq. vol. i. p. 416 ; Marsham, Can. 
Chron. p. 604, et seq. ; Winer, Realworterbuch ad voc. 
* Darius ;' &c. 

Note (43), p. 135. 

This was the view of Josephus (Ant. Jud. x. 11, § 4) ; and 
from him it has been adopted very generally. See Prideaux's 
Connection, &c, vol. i. p. 95 ; Hales's Analysis of Chronology, 
vol. ii. p. 508 ; Offerhaus, Spicileg. Hist. Chron. p. 265 ; Ber- 
tholdt, Bxc. zum Daniel, p. 843 ; Hengstenberg, Authentic des 
Daniel, § 48 ; Von Lengerke, Das Buck Daniel, § 92 ; Hooper's 
Palmoni, pp. 278-283 ; and Kitto's Biblical Cyclopaedia, ad 
voc. ' Darius.' But Xenophon is the sole authority for the 
existence of this personage ; and Herodotus may be quoted 
against his existence, since he positively declares that Astyages 
"had no male offspring." (Herod, i. 109.) 

Note (44), p. 135. 

By Larcher (Herodote, vol. vii. p. 175), Conringius (Ad- 
versary Chron. c. 13), and Bouhier (Dissertations sur Herodote, 
ch. iii. p. 29.) 

Note (45), p. 135. 

Syncellus regarded Darius the Mede as at once identical 
with Astyages and Nabonadius. (Chronograph, pp. 437, 
438.) 

Note (46), p. 135. 

That Cyrus placed Medes in situations of high trust, is evi- 
dent from Herodotus (i. 156 and 162.) He may therefore 
very possibly have established Astyages, his grandfather (?), 
as vice-king of Babylon, where the latter may have been 
known to the Jews as Darius the Mede. The diversity of 
name is no real objection here ; for Astyages (Asdahages = 
Aj-dahak) is not a name, but (like Pharaoh) a title. And if 
it be said that Darius the Mede was the son of an Ahasuerus 
or Xerxes (Dan. ix. 1), while Astyages was the son of Cyax- 
ares, it may be answered that, according to one explanation, 
Cyaxares is equivalent to Kei-Axares, or King Xerxes. There 
is still an objection in the age of Darius Medus, who was only 



366 NOTES. [Lect. V. 

62 in B. c. 538 (Dan. v. 31), whereas Astyages (it would 
seem) must have been 75 at that time. (See the author's 
Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 417, -418.) But as the numbers depend 
here on the single authority of Herodotus, whose knowledge 
of Median history was not very great, perhaps they are not 
greatly entitled to consideration. 

If however it be thought that, for this or any other reason, 
Darius Medus cannot be Astyages, we may regard him as a 
Median noble, entrusted by Cyrus with the government of 
Babylon. Scripture makes it plain that his true position was 
that of a subordinate king, holding his crown of a superior. 
Darius the Mede, we are told (Dan. v. 30), " took the king- 
dom " — KJTO^ft b2,\l — that is, " accepit regnum " (Buxtorf. 

ad voc. b^p), "received the kingdom at the hand of 
another." And again we read in another place (Dan. ix. 1), 
that he " was made king over the realm of the Chaldaeans ;" 
where the word used is IJ^OT, the Hophil of ybft, the 

Hiphal of which is used when David appoints Solomon king, 
and which thus means distinctly, " was appointed king by 
another." 

Note (47), p. 135. 
Herod, i. 191 ; Xen. Instit. Cyr. vii. 5, § 15. 

Note (48), p. 136. 
See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 401-403. 

Note (49), p. 136. 
Even the tyrant Cambyses, when he wished to marry his 
sister, otl ov/c icoOora eirevoee ironqcreiv, elpero icaXecras toi)? 
/3aackr)tov<; htKaara^, et res €<ttl KeXevwv vofjuo^ top 
/3ov\6/jL€vov aSeXcfyefj avvonceeuv. (Herod, iii. 31.) And Xerxes, 
when he had been entrapped, like Herod Antipas, into 
making a rash promise, feels compelled to keep it, vtto rod 
vofiov i%€py6fjLevo<;, ore arv^aai tov xprj&vra ov atyt 8v- 
varov, ecrTL /3aao\r)tov helirvov irpoKei/Jbevov. (Ibid. ix. 111.) 

Note (50), p. 136. 
See De Wette, Einleitung, § 255 a, p. 345. Compare Mr. 
Parker's Translation, (vol. ii. p. 490), where it is suggested 
that the author has copied and exaggerated what Herodotus 
ascribes to Darius Hystaspis. 



Lect. V.] NOTES. 367 

Note (51), p. 136. 

See Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii. p. 372 : " The one 
hundred and twenty princes appointed by Darius (Dan. vi. 
1) correspond to the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces 
of Ahasuerus (Esth. i. 1), and to the enlarged extent of the 
empire." 

Note (52), p. 138. 

Nebuchadnezzar's first conquest of Judaea in the reign of 
Jehoiakim — which was the occasion on which Daniel became 
a captive (Dan. i. 1) — fell, as appears from the Fragment of 
Berosus quoted in note 81 to Lecture IV., in his father's last 
year, which, according to Ptolemy's Canon, was b. c. 605. 
Nebuchadnezzar then reigned himself 43 years, Evil-Mero- 
dach his son reigned 2 years, Neriglisser 3 years and some 
months, Laborosoarchod three quarters of a year, Nabonadius 
17 years, and Darius the Mede one year. Consequently 
Daniel's prayer " in the first year of Darius the Mede " (Dan. 
ix. 1-3) fell into the year b. c. 538, or 68 years after the first 
conquest of Judsea by Nebuchadnezzar in b. c. 605. 

Note (53), p. 138. 
See Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii. pp. 366-368 ; and Mr. 
Hooper's Palmoni, p. 390. 

Note ( 54 ), p. 138. 
In Daniel's prophecy of the weeks, we have (I think) the 
term of seventy years used first (Dan. ix. 24) as a round 
number, and afterwards explained — accuracy being of especial 
importance in this prophecy — as 68 \ weeks (ibid. 25-27.) In 
Ezekiel, the forty years' desolation of Egypt (Ez. xxix. 11-13) 
can scarcely be understood to extend really to the full term. 
Prophecy is, as Bacon says, " a kind of historiography ;" but 
it does not ordinarily affect the minuteness and strict accuracy 
of human history. 

Note ( 55 ), p. 139. 
Einleitung, § 196, 197, pp. 260-265. It is obvious that the 
insertion of documents, such as the proclamation of Cyrus 
(Ez. i. 24), the list of those who came up with Zerubbabel 
(ib. ii. 3-67 ; Neh. viii. 7-69) ; the letters of the Samaritans, 
the Jews, the Persian kings (ib. iv. 11-22, &c), and the like, 



368 NOTES. [Lect. Y. 

does not in the slightest degree affect the unity and integrity 
of the works. Bnt De Wette does not appear to see this 
(§ 196 a, p. 260.) 

Note ( 56 ), p. 139. 

The number of generations from Joshua to Jaddua, which 
is six (Neh. xii. 10-12), should cover a space of about 200 
years. This would bring Jaddua to the latter half of the 
fourth century b. c. Exactly at this time there lived the 
well-known high-priest Jaddua, who received Alexander at 
Jerusalem, and showed him the prophecies of Daniel. (Joseph. 
Ant. Jud. xi. 8.) At this time too there was a Darius (Darius 
Codomannus) upon the Persian throne, as noted in verse 22. 
The Jaddua of Nehemiah must therefore be regarded as the 
contemporary of Alexander. 

Havernick allows this, but still thinks that Nehemiah may 
have written the whole book, since he may have lived to the 
time of Jaddua ! But as Nehemiah was old enough to be 
sent on an important mission in b. c. 445 (Neh. ii. 1-8), he 
would have been considerably above a hundred before Jaddua 
can have been priest, and 130 or 140 before the accession of 
Codomannus. 

Note ( 57 ), p. 139. 

Eight Dukes or Kings are mentioned in Genesis xxxvi. 
31-39, as having reigned over Edom, " before there reigned any 
king in Israel." This last clause must have been written 
after the time of Saul, the first Israelite king ; and it has 
commonly been regarded as an interpolation. (Graves's 
Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 346 ; Home, Introduction, 
vol. i. p. 64 ; &c.) But the real interpolation seems to be 
from verse 31 to verse 39 inclusive. These kings, whose 
reigns are likely to have covered a space of 200 years, must 
come down later than Moses, and probably reach nearly to 
the time of Saul. The whole passage seems to have been 
transferred from 1 Chron. i. 43-50. 

In 1 Chron. iii. 17-24, the genealogy of the descendants of 
Jechoniah is carried on for nine generations (Jechoniah, Pe- 
daiah, Zerubbabel, Hananiah, Shekaniah, Shemaiah, Neariah, 
Elioenai, and Hodaiah), who must have occupied a period not 
much short of three centuries. As Jechoniah came to the 



Lect. V.] NOTES. 369 

throne in B. c. 597, this portion of Chronicles can scarcely 
have been written before b. c. 300. See De Wette, Einlei- 
tung, § 189, p. 242, whose argument here appears to be sound. 
He remarks, that the occurrence of a Shemaiah, the son of 
Shekaniah, among the contemporaries of Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 
29), confirms the calculation, and indicates that the genealogy 
is consecutive. 

Note ( 58 ), p. 139. 
De Wette, in one place, admits that Ezra may have written 
a chapter (ch. x.) in which the third person is used, but pro- 
nounces against his having written the opening passage of 
ch. vii. (verses 1-10), chiefly on this ground, {JEinleitung, 
§ 196 a, p. 261.) Bertholdt and Zunz go farther, and deny 
that Ezra can have written ch. x. Professor Stuart concludes, 
chiefly on account of the alternation of persons, that " some 
one of Ezra's friends, probably of the prophetic order, com- 
piled the book from various documents," among which were 
some written by Ezra himself. (Defence of the Old Testament 
Canon, § 6, p. 148.) 

Note ( 59 ), p. 139. 

The third person is used through the first six chapters of 
Daniel, and at the opening of the seventh. The 'first then 
takes its place to the end of ch. ix. The third recurs in 
the first verse of ch. x. ; after which the first is used un- 
interruptedly. 

Note ( 60 ), p. 139. 

Thucydides begins his History in the third person (i. 1) ; 
but changes to the first after a few chapters (i. 20-22). 
Further on, in book iv., he resumes the third (chs. 104-106). 
In book v. ch. 26, he begins in the third, but runs on into the 
first, which he again uses in book viii. ch. 97. 

Note ( 61 ), p. 140. 
See Sir H. Bawlinson's Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform 
Inscriptions, vol. i. pp. 279, 286, 287, 292, 293, 324, 327, &c. 

Note ( 62 ), p. 140. 
The " first year of Cyrus " (Ez. i. 1), by which we must 
understand his first year in Babylon, was b. c. 538. The 

2 B 



370 NOTES. [Leot. V. 

seventh year of Artaxerxes, when Ezra took the direction of 
affairs at Jerusalem (ib. vii. 8), was b. c. 459 or 458. (See 
Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii. p. 378.) 

Note ( 63 ), p. 140. 
See above, Lecture I, pp. 17, 18, and compare p. 252, note 48. 

Note ( 64 ), p. 140. 
De Wette, Einleitung, § 196 a, p. 260 ; vol. ii. p. 324, 
Parker's Translation: Stuart, Defence of the Canon, § 6, 
p. 148 ; Home, Introduction, vol. v. pp. 64, 65. 

Note ( 65 ), p. 141. 
See Lecture IV. p. 93. 

Note (66), p. 141. 
See Lecture I. pp. 12, 13 ; and p. 250, note 34. 

Note ( 67 ), p. 141. 
" Die Erzahlung," says De Wette, " besteht aus einer 
Keihe geschichtlicher Schwierigkeiten und Unwahrschein- 
lichkeiten, und enthalt mehrere Verstosse gegen die Per- 
sischen Sitten." (Einleitung, § 198 a, p. 266.) 

Note ( 68 ), p. 141. 
(Eder, Freien UntersueJiungen iiber d. Kanon des Alt. 
Test. p. 12, et seq. ; Michaelis, Orient. Bibliothek, vol. ii. 
p. 35, et seq. ; Corrodi, Beleucht. d. Qeschickt. d. Jild. Ka- 
nons, vol. i. p. 66, et seq. ; and Bertholdt, Historisch-Kritische 
Einleitung in sdmmt. kanon. und apohr. Schriften d. Alt. 
und Neuen Testaments, p. 2425. 

Note ( 69 ), p. 141. 
See Carpzov's Introductio, xx. § 6, pp. 365, 366, where he 
shews that the Jews place the Book of Esther on a par with 
the Pentateuch, and above all the rest of Scripture. 

Note (70), p. 141. 
Even De Wette allows it to be " incontestable (unstreitig) 
that the feast of Purim originated in Persia, and was occa- 
sioned by an event similar to that related in Esther." (Ein- 
leitung, § 198 b, p. 267 ; vol. ii. p. 339, Parker's Translation.) 
Stuart says very forcibly — " The fact that the feast of Purim 



Lect. V.] NOTES. 371 

has come down to us from time almost immemorial, proves as 
certainly that the main events related in the Book of Esther 
happened, as the declaration of independence and the celebra- 
tion of the fourth of July prove that we (Americans) separated 
from Great Britain, and became an independent nation." 
(History and Defence of the 0. T. Canon, § 21, p. 308.) 

Note (71), p. 141. 
It is remarkable that the name of God is not once men- 
tioned in Esther. The only religious ideas introduced with 
any distinctness are the efficacy of a national humiliation 
(Esth. iv. 1-3), the certainty that punishment will overtake 
the wicked (ib. verse 14), and a feeling of confidence that 
Israel will not be forsaken (ibid.). Various reasons. have been 
given for this reticence (Carpzov, Introduct. p. 369 ; Baum- 
garten, Be Fide Lib. Estherce, p. 58 ; Home, Introduction, 
vol. v. p. 69, &c.) ; but they are conjectural, and so uncertain. 
One thing only is clear, that if a Jew in later times had 
wished to palm upon his countrymen, as an ancient and 
authentic narrative, a work which he had composed himself, 
he would have taken care not to raise suspicion against his 
work by such an omission. (See the remarks of Professor 
Stuart, Defence of the Canon, p. 311.) 

Note ( 72 ), p. 142. 
The grounds upon which the historical character of the 
Book of Esther is questioned, are principally the following. 
(1.) The Persian king intended by Ahasuerus seems to be 
Xerxes. As Esther cannot be identified with Amestris, the 
daughter of Otanes, who really ruled Xerxes, the whole story 
of her being made queen, and of her great power and in- 
fluence, becomes impossible. (2.) Mordecai, having been 
carried into captivity with Jechoniah (in b.o. 588), must have 
been 120 years old in Xerxes' twelfth year (b.c. 474), and 
Esther must have been " a superannuated beauty." (3.) A 
Persian king would never have invited his queen to a carousal. 
(4.) The honours paid to Mordecai are excessive. (5.) The 
marriage with a Jewess is impossible, since the queens were 
taken exclusively from the families of the seven conspirators. 
(6.) Esther's concealment of her Jewish descent, and Hainan's 

2 b 2 



372 NOTES. [Lect. V. 

ignorance of her relationship to Mordecai, are highly im- 
probable. (7.) The two murderous decrees, the long notice 
given, and the tameness ascribed to both Jews and Persians, 
are incredible. (8.) The massacre of more than 75,000 
Persians by the Jews in a day, without the loss (so far as 
appears) of a man, transcends belief, and is an event of such 
a nature that " no amount of historical evidence would render 
it credible." (See Mr. Parker's additions to De Wette, vol. ii. 
pp. 340-345.) It is plain that none of these objections are of 
very great weight. The first, second, and last, are met and 
refuted in the text. To the third it is enough to answer, in 
De Wette's own words (Mnleitung, § 198 a, p. 267), that 
such an invitation is " possible on account of the advancing 
corruption in Xerxes' time, and through the folly of Xerxes 
himself." To the fourth we may reply, that the honours 
being analogous (as De Wette observes) to those paid to 
Joseph, are thereby shewn to be not greater than under some 
circumstances were assigned to benefactors by eastern mon- 
arch. Nor would any one acquainted with the East make 
the objection. The fifth objection is met by observing, that 
when Cambyses wished to marry his sister, which was as 
much against the law as marrying a Jewess, and consulted 
the royal judges on the point, they told him, that there was 
no law, so far as they knew, which allowed a man to marry 
his sister, but that there was a law to this effect, that the 
Persian king might do what he pleased. The sixth objection 
scarcely needs a reply, for its answer is contained in the 
preceding objection. If it was contrary to Persian law that 
the king should marry a Jewess, the fact of Esther's nation- 
ality would be sure to be studiously concealed. Finally, to 
the seventh objection we may answer, that the murderous 
tenor of the decrees is credible (as De Wette confesses) on 
account of the " base character and disposition of Xerxes " — 
that the length of notice in the first instance was the con- 
sequence of Haman's superstition, while the length of the 
notice in the second instance followed necessarily upon the 
first — and that no " tameness " is proved by the mere silence 
of Scripture as to the number of Jews who fell in the struggle. 
" The author of the book," as Professor Stuart observes, " is 
wholly intent upon the victory and the deliverance of the 



Lect. V.] NOTES. 373 

Jews. The result of the encounter he relates, viz. the great 
loss and humiliation of Persian enemies. But how much it 
cost to achieve this victory he does not relate . . . We can 
scarcely doubt that many Jews were killed or wounded." 
(History and Defence of the 0. T. Canon, § 21, pp. 309, 310.) 

Note ( 73 ), p. 142. 
Carpzov, Introductio, c. xx. § 4, pp. 360, 361. 

Note (74), p. 142. 
Carpzov, § 6, pp. 368, 369. This was probably the ground 
of Luther's objections to the Canonicity of Esther. (De Servo 
Arbitrio, p. 118 ; et alibi.) It may also have caused the 
omission of Esther from some lists of the canonical books in 
the Fathers. (Athanas. Up. Festal, vol. i. p. 963 ; Synops. 
S. jS. vol. ii. p. 128 ; Melito ap. Euseb. Hist Eccl iv. 26, &c.) 
In recent times the objection has not been much pressed. 

Note ( 75 ), p. 144. 
See Sir H. Rawlinson's Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform 
Inscriptions, vol. i. pp. 197-200, 273, 274, 280, 286, 291, 299, 
320, 324, 327, 330, 335, 338, and 342. 

Note ( 76 ), p. 144. 
Ibid. pp. 285, 291, 319, 323, &c. 

Note ( 77 ), p. 144. 
Ewald, Geschichte d.' Volkes Israel, vol. hi. part ii. p. 118 ; 
Winer, Realivorterbuch, ad voce. ' Ahasuerus ' and ' Artachs- 
chaschta ;' Kitto, Biblical Cyclopaedia, vol. i. pp. 98 and 229 ; &c. 

Note (78), p. 145. 
The Pseudo-Smerdis seems to have been known by several 
names. According to Darius (Behist. Inscr. col. i. par. 11), 
his true name was Gomates (Gaumata), and he gave himself 
out for Smerclis (Bardiya). According to Justin (i. 9, § 9), 
he was called Oropastes. As Artaxerxes means "Great 
King," " Great Warrior " (see the author's Herodotus, vol. hi. 
p. 552), it may perhaps have been in common use as an 
epithet of any Persian monarch. The application to Cam- 
byses of the name Ahasuerus (=Xerxes) is still more 
curious. Cambyses was known as Kembath in Egypt, Ka- 



374 



NOTES. 



[Lect. V. 



bujiya in Persia, Kafifivo-rj? in Greece. It is certainly very 
remarkable that the Jews should only know him as Xerxes. 
Perhaps the theory of Mr. Howes (Pictorial Bible, ad loc.) 
with respect to the Ahasuerns of Ezra iv. 6, viz. that Xerxes 
is intended, might be adopted, without the adoption of his 
view that the Artaxerxes of the next verse is Artaxerxes 
Longimanus. The author may go on in verse 6 to a fact 
subsequent to the time of Darius, whom he has mentioned in 
verse 5, and then return in verse 7 to a time anterior to 
Darius. But Mr. Howes's view of the Artaxerxes of verse 7 
is incompatible with the nexus of verses 23 and 24. 

Note (79), p. 145. 

The reigns are in each case four — Cyrus, Cambyses, Smer- 
dis the Mage, Darius Hystaspis, in profane history — Cyrus, 
Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius, in Ezra. The harmony of 
the chronology is best seen from Zechariah. That prophet 
implies that 70 years were not completed from the destruction 
of Jerusalem in the second year of Darius (Zech. i. 7 and 
12) ; but that they were completed two years later, in the 
fourth year of that prince (ib. vii. 5). He therefore, it would 
seem, placed the completion in Darius's 3rd or 4th year, 
i. e. in B.C. 519 or 518. Taking the latter date, and count- 
ing back by the years of the Astronomical Canon, we find the 
first of the seventy years to fall into B.C. 587. Now this 
appears by the same Canon to have been the 18th of Nebu- 
chadnezzar, which was the exact year of the destruction of 
Jerusalem (Jer. Hi. 29). m Thus the two chronologies har- 
monise exactly. 

Note (80), p. 145. 

See the Behistun Inscript. col. i. par. 14. 

Note ( 81 ), p. 145. 

Behist. Inscript. 1. s. c. 

m In 2 Kings xxv. 8, we find the 
nineteenth year mentioned as that 
of the destruction instead of the 
eighteenth. I believe the cause of 
this difference to be, that some 
rcckuued the reign of Nebuchad- 
nezzar to have commenced in b. c. 



605 — the last year of Nabopolassar 
— when Nebuchadnezzar came into 
Palestine as his father's representa- 
tive, defeated Necho, and made 
Jehoiakim tributary. (See Lecture 
IV. note 82.) 



Lect. V.] NOTES. 375 

Note ( 82 ), p. 146. 
The length of the Persian kings' reigns from the time of 
Darius Hystaspis to that of Darius Nothus is fixed beyond 
the possibility of doubt. Besides the Greek contemporary 
notices, which would form a very fair basis for an exact 
chronology, we have the consentient testimony on the point 
of Babylonian and Egyptian tradition, preserved to us in 
the Astronomical Canon and in Manetho, as reported by 
Eusebius. From both it appears, that from the sixth year 
of Darius to the seventh of Artaxerxes (Longimanus) was a 
period of 58 years. 

Note ( 83 ), p. 147. 
The Persian word is read as Khshayarsha. Ahasuerus 
(ttJVYItffrTN) only differs from Khshayarsha by the adoption 
of the prosthetic N, which the Hebrews invariably placed 
before the Persian Khsh, and the substitution of ^ for \ a 
common dialectic variation. Gesenius (Thesaurus, vol. i. 
p. 75), and Winer (Mealworterbuch, ad voc. ' Ahasuerus ') admit 
the identity of the words. 

Note ( 84 ), p. 147. 
The construction of Esther ii. 5, 6 is ambiguous. The 
word "who" ("l#N) at the commencement of verse 6, 
may refer either to Mordecai, the chief subject of the nar- 
rative, or to Kish, the last individual mentioned in verse 5. 
If Kish was carried off by Nebuchadnezzar about b. o. 597, 
we should expect to find his great-grandson living in B. c. 
485-465, four generations or 130 years afterwards. 

Note ( 85 ), p. 148. 
See Herod, vii. 19, 20. 

Note ( 86 ), p. 148. 
Ibid. ix. 108. 

Note (87), p. 148. 
De Wette, Mnleitung, '§ 198 a, p. 267 ; vol. ii. p. 337, 
Parker's Translation. 

Note (88), p. 148. 
Amestris was the daughter of Otanes, according to He- 
rodotus (vii. 61) ; according to Ctesias, of Onophas or 



376 NOTES. [Lect. V. 

Anaphes (Exc. Pers., § 20). It has been maintained; that 
she was Esther by Scaliger and Jahn ; but, besides other 
objections, the character of Amestris makes this very im- 
probable. (See Herod, vii. 114; ix. 112; Ctes. Exc. Pers. 
§ 40-43.) 

Note ( 89 ), p. 148. 
Mnleitung, § 199 ; p. 268. The following points of exact 
knowledge are noted by De Wette's Translator (vol. ii. p. 
346), more distinctly £han by De Wette himself: — 1, The 
unchangeableness of the royal edicts ; 2, the prohibition of 
all approach to the king without permission ; 3, the manner 
of publishing decrees ; 4, the employment of eunuchs in the 
seraglio ; 5, the absence of women at banquets ; 6, the use 
of lots in divination ; and 7, the sealing of decrees with the 
royal signet (compare Herod, iii. 128.) To these may be 
added, 1, the general character of the Persian palaces (i, 5, 6 ; 
compare Loftus's Ghaldoea and Susiana, pp. 373-375) ; 2, the 
system of posts (viiL 10 ; Herod, viii. 98) ; 3, the law that 
each wife should go in to the king in her turn (ii. 12; 
Herod, iii. 69) ; .4, the entry in "the book of records" of 
the names and acts of royal benefactors (ii. 23 ; vi. 1, 2 ; 
Herod, vii. 194 ; viii. 85, 90, &c.) ; and 5, the principle that 
all such persons had a right to a reward (vi. 3 ; Herod, iii. 
140 ; viii. 85 ; ix. 107). 

Note ( 90 ), p. 149. 
Herod, iii. 79 ; Ctes. Exc. Pers. § 15. 

Note ( 91 ), p. 149. 

Some writers have supposed that the Artaxerxes who 
befriended Ezra was really Xerxes. So Josephus, {Ant. Jud. 
xi. 5) ; who is followed by J. D. Michaelis (ad loc), Jahn 
{Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 276), and others. But there seems to 
be no good reason for supposing him to have been a different 
person from the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah, who is allowed on 
all hands to be Longimanus. (See the article on 'Arta- 
xerxes ' in Kitto's Biblical Cyclopcedia, where the question is 
ably argued.) That the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is Longi- 
manus, appears from the length of his reign (Neh. v. 14), 
combined with the fact that he was contemporary with the 



Lect. V.] 



NOTES. 



377 



grandsons or great-grandsons of those who were contemporary 
with Cyrus. n 

Note ( 92 ), p. 149. 
Ctesias ap. Phot. Bibliothec. pp. 115-124. 

Note (93), p. 150. 
On the non-historical character of the Book of Judith, see 
the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 245, note 8 . 



D The length of his reign, 32 
years at the least, shows him to 
have been either Longimanus or 
Mnemon. But as Eliashib, the 
grandson of Jeshua, who went from 
Babylon as high-priest in the first 
year of Cyrus (b. c. 538), is still 



alive in the 32nd year of Nehemiah's 
Artaxerxes (Neb. xiii. 6, 7), it 
seems quite impossible that he can 
be Mnemon, whose 32nd year was 
b. c. 374. (See the author's Hero- 
dotus, vol. iv. pp. 260, 261, note 13 .) 



378 NOTES, [Lect. VI, 



LECTURE VI. 



Note (1), p. 152. 

On the different views entertained as to the exact year of 
our Lord's birth, see Olshansen's Biblischer Commentar, vol. 
ii. pp. 619-622 ; vol. iv. pp. 334-337, E. T.° On the testi- 
monies which determine the death of Herod the Great to the 
year of Eome 750, see Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii. pp. 
254 and 256. The Nativity thns falls at least as early as 
A. u. c. 749, and the vision of Zachariah as early as A. u. c. 
748. Some important astronomical reasons are assigned by 
Dean Alford (G-reek Testament, vol. i. p. 7) for believing that 
the actual year of the Nativity was a. u. c. 747, or seven years 
before the Christian Era. 

The termination of the history of the Acts has also been 
variously placed, in A. d. 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65. (See 
Olshausen, 1. s. c.) I prefer the shorter reckoning on the 
grounds stated by Dr. Burton. {Ecclesiastical History of the 
First Three Centuries, vol. i. pp. 277, 278.) 

Note ( 2 ), p. 155. 
See Lecture II. p. 30. 

Note ( 3 ), p. 155. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 13 ; p. 56, E. T. 

Note ( 4 ), p. 155. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1. s. c. 

Note (5), p. 155. 
Ibid. § 14 ; p. 84, E. T. 

Note ( 6 ), p. 155. 
Ibid. § 13 ; p. 56, E. T. 

Commentary on the. Gospels and Creak, A. M. Third edition. Edin- 



the Acts, by Hermann Olshausen, 
D.D. Translated by the Rev. II. B. 



burgh, Clarke, 1857. 



Lect VI.] NOTES. 379 

Note ( 7 ), p. 155. 
Ibid. 1. s. c. ; pp. 62, 63, E. T. 

Note ( 8 ), p. 156. 

In the Syriac Version of Matthew, which is undoubtedly 
very old, and which some regard as of nearly equal authority 
with the Greek Gospel p , the title runs, "The Gospel, the 
Preaching of Matthew." The Persian has, " The Gospel of 
Matthew;" and the Arabic, "The Gospel of Saint Matthew 
the Apostle, which he wrote in Hebrew by the inspiration 
of the Holy Spirit." (See Home's Introduction, vol. i. pp. 
260, 261.) 

Note ( 9 ), p. 157. 

Herodotus, for example, is quoted but by one author 
(Ctesias) within this period (b. c. 450-350). In the next cen- 
tury (b. c. 350-250) he is also quoted by one author, Aristotle ; 
in the century following (b. c. 250-150), he is not quoted at 
all ; in the fourth century, he for the first time musters two 
witnesses, Scymnus Chius and Cicero q ; it is not till the fifth 
century from the time of his writing his History, that he is 
largely and commonly cited by writers of the day. (See Mr. 
Isaac Taylor's recent work on the Transmission of Ancient 
Books to Modern Times, pp. 295-299.) The first distinct quo- 
tation 1 of Thucydides seems to be that by Hermippus (Fragm. 
Hist. Grr. vol. iii. p. 48, Fr. 54), who lived about b. o. 200, 
nearly two centuries after him. Posidonius, writing about 
B. c. 75, first quotes Polybius, who wrote about b. c. 150. 
Livy is, I believe, only quoted by Quinctilian among writers 
of the century following him ; Tacitus, though mentioned as 
a writer by the younger Pliny, is first cited — nearly a century 
after his death — by Tertullian. If the reader will cast his 
eye over the "Testimonies," as they are called, prefixed 
to most old editions of the classics, he will easily convince 

tise concerning the Ocean. (Fr. 
Hist. Or. vol. iii. p. 279.) 

r Cratippus alluded to the fact 
that there were no speeches in the 
last book, and that the work was 
left unfinished ; but he did not (so 
far as we know) make any quota- 
tion. {Fr. Hist. Or. vol. ii. p. 76.) 



p See Dr. Cureton's recent work, 
Remains of a very Ancient Recen- 
sion of the Four Oospels in Syriac, 
London, 1858. 

i Posidonius should perhaps be 
added as a third witness belonging 
to this period. Pie quoted Hero- 
dotus, not very correctly, in hisTrea- 



380 NOTES. [Lect. VI. 

himself of the general truth of the assertion upon which I 
have ventured in the text. The argument is one advanced, 
but without proof, by Paley. (Evidences, part i. ch. 10 ; p. 104.) 

Note ( 10 ), p. 158. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 13 ; p. 56, E. T. 

Note ( 11 ), p. 158. 
See Lecture II. pp. 30-37 ; and note 8 on Lecture V. pp. 
355, 356. 

Note ( 12 ), p. 159. 

See Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 113 ; Kitto, Biblical Cy- 
clopaedia, vol. ii. p. 582. 

Note ( 13 ), p. 159. 
See Grabe, Spicilegium Patrum, vol. ii. p. 225 ; Pearson, 
Vindicim Ignatianm, pars i. c. 6 ; Burton, Ecclesiastical History, 
vol. ii. pp. 29, 30 ; and p. 152. 

Note ( 14 ), p. 159. 
Constitutiones Apostolicoe, vi. 16 ; Irenseus, adv. ITceres. i. 
20 ; &c. 

Note (15), p. 160. 

Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 13 ; pp. 62, 63 ; E. T. Some writers 
have maintained that the expression Kara MarOalov is exactly 
equivalent to the genitive rov MarOalov. (See Home's In- 
troduction, vol. v. p. 260.) Olshausen observes more cor- 
rectly, that the expression is ambiguous. It may mark actual 
and complete authorship, as in the passage quoted from 2 
Maccab. in the text ; or it may mean editorship, as in the 
phrase f/ 0/x77po? Kara 'Apiarapxov. The unanimous testimony 
of the early Christian writers proves that, as applied to the 
Gospels, it was used in the former sense. If it be asked, why 
the simple genitive was not used, Olshausen replies (rightly, 
as it seems to me), because the Gospel was known as " the 
Gospel of Jesus Christ." Piety therefore made the use of 
such phrases as evayyeXtov IslarOaiov, evayyeXtov M.dpfcov, 
"impossible." (Biblischer Commentar, Einleitung, § 4; p. 11, 

note.) 

Note ( 16 ), p. 160. 

Faustus, the Manichaean, did indeed attempt to prove that 
the first Gospel was not the work of St. Matthew; but 1, he 



Lect. VI.] NOTES. 381 

wrote late in the fourth century ; and 2, it seems that he 
could find no flaw in the external evidence, since he based 
his conclusion on an internal difficulty — the use of the third 
instead of the first person by the supposed writer (Matt. ix. 
9). Eichhorn, having ventured on the assertion, that " many 
ancient writers of the Church doubted the genuineness of 
many parts of our Gospels," is only able to adduce in proof 
of it this instance of Faustus. (See his Mnleitung in das N. 
Test. vol. i. p. 145.) 

Note ( 17 ), p. 160. 
Irenseus says — O fiev Brj M.aT0aio$ iv tois f E/3/Wo£? rfj IB la 
Bidke/CTay avTwv /cal ypacjyrjv i^ijvey/cev evayyeXlov, tov Herpov 
/cal tov Havkov iv 'Vco/jiy evayyeki^ofievcov /cal Oe/neXiovvTcov 
ttjv i/c/ckwo-lav. TS/lera Be ttjv tovtcov e^oBov, Map/co? 6 ^aQr\Tr^ 
/cal ipfjLrjvevTrjs Jlerpov, /cal avrbs ra vtto Herpov /cvpvcrao/jLeva 
iyypdcfxos rj/Jiiv irapaBiBco/ce. ~Kal Aov/cas Be 6 d/cokov0os Havkov, 
to vir i/celvov K7]pvo~cr6fj,evov evayyekiov iv (3i(3klu> /careQeTo. 
"E7retra 'looavvrjs 6 /jLa0r)Tr)$ tov JLvpiov, 6 /cal iirl to crTrjOo? 
avTov dvairecrcbv, /cal avTos i^eBay/ce to evayyekiov, iv 'E<^eo-&) 
t?5? 'Aalas 8taTpl/3(ov. (Advers. Hceres. iii. 1.) And again — 
Kat to ILvayyekia ovv tovtoi? avficpcova, iv ol? iy/caOe^erai "Kpi- 
crro?. To fiev yap /card ^Icodvvrjv ttjv dirb tov UaTpbs rjye/no- 
vi/crjv avTov /cal evBo^ov yeveav BirjyeiTai, keyov' 'Ey dp^fj rjv 6 
A070? k. t. X. To Be /card Aov/cdv, cure lepaTi/cov ^apa/cTTjpo^ 
vTrdpyov, airb tov Tiayaplov tov lepecos Ov/mcovtos tg> (&ea> 
rjp^aTo . . . M<zr0ato9 Be ttjv /car dv6pd>irov avTov yevvr\cnv /crj- 
pvTTei, \eywv' B//3Xo9 yeveaeco^ 'Itjctov ^KpiaTov /c. t. X. WLdp/cos 
Be dirb tov irpo^rjTiKov irvevfiaTO^ . . . ttjv dpyr\v i7roirjaaTO, Xe- 
7GW 'Ap^r) tov evayyekiov T^croO ^Kpiarov k. t. X. (Ibid. iii. 

11, § 11.) 

Clement — according to the report of Eusebius — said : 
7rpoyeypd(p6ao tcov evayyeklcov tol irepie^ovTa ra? yeveakoyla^' 
to Be Kara yidp/cov TavTrjv ia^Tj/cevai ttjv ol/covofjulav' tov UeTpov 
B^fxocrla iv 'Vco/jltj K^pv^avTo^ tov \6yov, /cal nrvevfjiaTi to 
evayyekiov i^enrovTos, tov<; irapovTas 7roXXoi>9 ovras irapa/ca- 
kecrai tov Is/ldp/cov, ft)9 av d/cokovOrjcravTa avTat iroppwOev, /cal 
/uie/jLvrj/jLevov tcov Xe%6evTcov, dvaypdyjrai to- elprjfieva' iroirjaavTa 
Be to evayyekiov, fieTaBovvai rot9 Beo/xevoi^ avTov. "Oirep iiri- 
yvbvTa tov ITeTpoi^, irpoTpeTTTiicws /jl^tc /ccokvcrai \ir)Te nrpo- 



382 NOTES. [Lect. VI. 

Tpeijrao~9ai' tov fxevrot 'I(odvvr)v ecr^arov cvvlSovtcl otl tcl o~co- 
fjuariKa iv Tot9 evayyeXiots SeBrfXcoTCU, irpoTpairevra viro tcov 
<yvo) pi/bLCDv, rrvevfjuari Oeoc^oprjOivra, irvevpLaTUcbv TroLrjaat 
evayyeXiov. (Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 14.) 

Tertullian writes — " In summa, si constat id verius quod 
prius, id prius quod et ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis ; 
pariter utique constabit, id esse ab apostolis traditum, quod 
apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. Videamus 
quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint; ad quam regulam 
Galatae sint recorrecti ; quid legant Philippenses, Thessaloni- 
censes, Ephesii; quid etiam Eomani de proximo sonent, 
quibus evangeliuni et Petrus et Paulus sanguine suo signatum 
reliquerunt. Habemus et Johannis alumnas ecclesias . . . 
Dico itaque apud illas, nee solas jam apostolicas, sed apud 
universas, quse illis de societate sacramenti confoederantur, id 
Evangelium Lucse ab initio editionis sua? stare, quod cum 
maxime tuemur . . . Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum 
cceteris quoque patrocinabitur evangeliis, quae proinde per 
illas et secundum illas haberhus ; Johannis dico et Matthsei ; 
licet et Marcus quod edidit, Petri adfirmetur, cujus interpres 
Marcus ; nam et Lucas digestum Paulo adscribere solent. 
Capit magistrorum videri, qua? cliscipuli promulgarint." (Adv. 
Marcion. iv. 5.) 

Origen — f O? iv TrapaZocrei fiaOwv nrepl t&v reaadpeov evay- 
yeXlcov, a /cat puova dvavr ip prjra iarcv iv rfj vtto tov 
ovpavbv ifCfc\r}cr la tov ©eoO* otl irpoiTov fiev yey paiTTai 
to icara tov ttot€ TeXcovrjV, vcrTepov Se diroaToXov 'I^crou Xpt- 
gtov yiaTOalov, iichehoiKOTa avTo toIs dirb y Iov8a'icrp,ov iriaTev- 
aaao, ypdfifiao-iv 'l&fBpaiKols avvTeTaypbevov' SevTepov Be to 
Kara Mdp/cov, a>? ITeTpo? vcfirjyrjcraTO clvtw, TroafjaavTa' . . . ical 
Tpurov to fcaTa Aovtcav, to vtto UavXov iiraivov\ievov evay- 
yeXiov, rot? drrb tcov kOvcov ireiroi^KOTa' eVl ttclgl Be to kcltcl 
'Icodvvrjv. (Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 25.) 

Of course these passages do not form a hundredth part of 
the testimony borne by these writers to the authority of the 
four Gospels. They use them with the same frequency and 
deference as modern divines. They appeal to them alone in 
proof of doctrine, making the most marked difference between 
them and such apocryphal " Lives of Christ " as they mention. 
The student will find this portion of the Christian evidences 



Lect. VI.] NOTES. 383 

drawn out most fully by Lardner, in his great work on the 
Credibility of the Gospel History, vol. i. pp. 283 et seq. A 
good selection from the evidence is made by Mr. Norton, 
(Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 83-105.) Paley's 
Synopsis also deserves the attention of the student. (Evi- 
dences, part i. ch. 10, § 1.) 

Note (18), p. 161. 
Justin's ordinary expression is "the Memoirs of the 
Apostles " (ra dirofjLvrj/jLovevfMaTa rcov a/iroaToKmv) ; but in one 
place he identifies these Memoirs with the Gospels by adding, 
a KcCkevrai evayyeXta, " which are called Gospels." (Apol. i. 
p. 83, B.) He appears to prefer the former term in address- 
ing the heathen, as more classical. In his Dialogue with 
Trypho he sometimes uses the term euayyekuov simply. 
(Opera, p. 195, D.) These Memoirs, or Gospels, he says, 
were composed "by the Apostles of Christ and their com- 
panions " (Vot? a7rofiV7)fiov€VfjLaaiv, a tfyqfu vito tcov ' AttocttoXcov 
clvtov zeal rSiv iicelvoift 7rapa,fco\ov97]<rdvT(ov s <nnrrera/)(6ai). It 
has been questioned by Bishop Marsh and others whether 
the quotations are really from our Gospels ; but the doubt, if 
it deserves the name, has (I think) been wholly set at rest 
by Bishop Kaye (Account of the Life and Opinions of Justin 
Martyr, ch. viii. pp. 132-152), and Mr. Norton (Credibility, 
&c. vol. i. note E, pp. 316-324). The careful analysis of the 
latter writer exhausts the subject, and deserves attentive 
perusal. 

Note (19), p. 161. 

Papias said — M-ardalos fJLev ovv 'TSiftpatiBi SiaX&fcnp ra Xoyta 
o-vveypdyjraro. epfxrjvevae 8' avra &)? rjv Svvarbs €fca<TTO<;. And, 
Map/co? pulv epfjL7)vevTr)<; Herpov yevopevos, o&u ifjuvrj/JLoveverev, 
aicpifiois eypa^rev, ov fievroi rd^ei ra vtto tov ILpcarov rj 
Xex^epra rj irpaxOevra. (A p. Euseb. Hist. JEccles. Hi. 39.) 

It has been questioned whether Papias was really a dis- 
ciple of the Apostle John (Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 13), or only 
of a certain John the Presbyter, whom he calls " a disciple of 
our Lord." It appears from Eusebius (1. s. c.) that he did not 
himself claim to have received his knowledge of Christianity 
from the apostles themselves. Still the testimony of Irenaaus 

s Compare Luke i. 1 ; e'8o£e ko.^o\ naprfKoXovdr] koti k. r. A. 



384 NOTES. [Lect. VI. 

is express (Jlairia^, 6 'Icodvvov fiev a/covo-rfc, Tlo\vfcdp7rov Se 
eTalpos yeyovcos. Euseb. 1. s. c), and cannot without violence 
be understood of any one but St. John the Evangelist. 

Note (20), p. 161. 
Leben Jesu, § 14. " It is however by no means necessary 
to attribute this same freedom from all conscious intention of 
fiction to the authors of all those narratives in the Old and 
New Testament, which must be considered as unhistorical . . . 
The authors of the Homeric songs could not have believed that 
every particular which they related of their gods and heroes 
had really happened ; . . . and exactly as little may this be said 
of all the unhistorical narratives of the Gospels, as for example, 
of the first chapter of the third, and many parts of the fourth 
Gospel" (pp. 83, 84 ; E. T.) 

Note (21), p. 162. 
Ibid. § 13 ; p. 60, E. T. 

Note (22), p. 162. 
Ibid. 1. s. c. 

Note (23), p. 162. 
See above, note 1. The date A. d. 63 is preferred by Bei- 
tholdt, Feilmoser, Dean Alforcl, Mr. Birks, and others. 

Note ( 24 ), p. 163. 
Leben Jesu, §13; p. 61, E. T. 

Note ( 25 ), p. 163. 
See above, note 17. 

Note ( 26 ), p. 163. 
This is Burton's conclusion (JEccles. Hist vol. i. p. 255), de- 
duced from the discrepancies in the external evidence. Dean 
Alford's unanswerable argument in favour of the independent 
origin of the first three Gospels, deduced from their internal 
character, implies the same. The first three Gospels were 
probably all written within the space a. d. 58 — 65. 

Note ( 27 ), p. 165. 
The Old Testament furnishes us with but one instance of 
even a second record — viz. that of Chronicles ; which deals with 
the period of history already treated in Samuel and Kings. 
Elsewhere we have throughout but a single narrative. 



Lect. VI. NOTES. 385 

Note (28), p. 165. 

Theophylact and Euthymius placed the composition of St. 
Matthew's Gospel within eight years of the Ascension ; Nice- 
phorus placed it 15 years after that event ; Cosmas Inclico- 
pleustes assigned it to the time of the stoning of Stephen. 
(See Alford's Greek Testament, Prolegomena, vol. i. p. 26.) In 
modern times Bishop Tomline, Le Clerc, Dr. Owen, Dr. 
Townson, and others, incline to a date even earlier than that 
fixed by Theophylact. 

Note (29), p. 166. 

On the various theories to which the combined resemblances 
and differences of the first three Gospels have given birth, see 
Home's Introduction, vol. v. Appendix, pp. 509-529 ; Alford's 
Greek Testament, vol. i. Prolegomena, ch. i. § 2, 3 ; and Nor- 
ton's Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. Note D. pp. 239-296. 
The last-named writer, after having proved that no one of the 
first three Evangelists copied from another, observes with 
much force — "If the Evangelists did not copy one from 
another, it follows, that the first three Gospels must all have 
been written about the same period ; since if one had preceded 
another by any considerable length of time, it cannot be sup- 
posed that the author of the later Gospel would have been 
unacquainted with the work of his predecessor, or would have 
neglected to make use of it ; especially when we take into 
view, that its reputation must have been well established 
among Christians." And he concludes, " that no one of the 
first three Gospels was written long before or long after the 
year 60." {Genuineness, &c, vol. i. pp. 297, 298.) 

Note (30), p. 166. 

See the passage quoted above, note 17, page 381. Irenseus, 
it will be observed, makes St. Matthew write his Gospel while 
St. Peter and St. Paul were founding the Church at Rome, i. e. 
during the term of St. Paul's imprisonment (probably A. D. 
56-58). He writes it "among the Hebrews" — i. e. in Pales- 
tine. After the two great Apostles left Home, and separated 
—soon after, he seems to mean — their respective companions, 
Mark and Luke, are said to have written. At least this is de- 
clared positively of Mark ; less definitely of Luke, whose 

2 c 



386 NOTES. [Lect. VI. 

Gospel had perhaps been composed a year or two earlier, and 
sent privately to Theophilus. 

Note (31), p. 166. 

It is unnecessary to prove this agreement ; which is such, 
that each of the three writers has been in turn accused of 
copying from one or both of his fellow-Evangelists. (See 
Home's Introduction, vol. v. Appendix, pp. 509, 510.) 

Note (32), p. 167. 

This is one of the main objects at which Strauss aims in the 
greater portion of his work. See Sections 21, 24, 39, 46, 53, 

57, 59, &c. &c. 

Note (33), p. 167. 

If we take, for example, the second of the sections in which 
the " disagreements of the Canonical Gospels " are expressly 
considered (§ 24), we find the following enumeration of "dis- 
crepancies," in relation to the form of the Annunciation. 
" 1. The individual who appears is called in Matthew aw angel 
of the Lord; in Luke, the angel Gabriel. 2. The person to 
whom the angel appears is, according to Matthew, Joseph ; 
according to Luke, Mary. 3. In Matthew, the apparition is 
seen in a dream, in Luke while awake. 4. There is a dis- 
agreement with respect to the time at which the apparition 
took place. 5. Both the purpose of the apparition, and the 
effect, are different." In this way five "discrepancies" are 
created out of the single fact, that St. Matthew does not relate 
the Annunciation to the Virgin, while St. Luke gives no 
account of the angelic appearance to Joseph. Similarly in the 
section where the calling of the first Apostles is examined 
(§ 70), "discrepancies" are seen between the fourth and the 
first two Evangelists in the following respects — " 1. James is 
absent from St. John's account, and instead of his vocation, we 
have that of Philip and Nathaniel. 2. In Matthew and Mark, 
the scene is the coast of the Galilaean sea ; in John it is the 
vicinity of the Jordan. 3. In each representation there are 
two pairs of brothers ; but in the one they are Andrew and 
Peter, James and John; in the other, Andrew and Peter, 
Philip and Nathaniel. And 4. In Matthew and Mark all are 



Lect. VI.] NOTES. 387 

called by Jesus; in John, Philip only, the others being 
directed to him by the Baptist." Here again we have four 
discrepancies made out of the circumstance, that the first two 
Evangelists relate only the actual call of certain disciples, 
while St, John informs us what previous acquaintance they 
had of Jesus. So from the mere silence of Matthew, Strauss 
concludes positively that, he opposes St. Luke, and did not 
consider Nazareth, but Bethlehem, to have been the original 
residence of our Lord's parents (§ 39) ; from the omission by 
the three earlier writers of the journeys into Judeea during our 
Lord's Ministry, he pronounces that they " contradict" St. 
John, who speaks of such journeys (§ 57) ; he finds a " discre- 
pancy" between this Evangelist's account of the relations 
between the Baptist and our Lord, and the account of the 
others, since he gives, and they do not give, the testimony 
borne by the former to our Lord's character (§ 46) ; he con- 
cludes from St. Luke's not saying that St. John was in prison 
when he sent his two disciples to our Lord, that he considered 
him as not yet cast into prison (ibid.) ; he finds St. Luke's and 
St. Matthew's accounts of the death of Judas " irreconcileable," 
because St. Luke says nothing of remorse, or of suicide, but 
relates what has the appearance of a death by accident (§ 130); 
he regards the presence of Nicodemus at our Lord's interment 
as a " fabrication of the fourth Evangelist," simply because it 
is unnoticed by the others (§ 80) ; he concludes from their 
silence as to the raising of Lazarus that " it cannot have been 
known to them," and therefore that it cannot be true (§ 100) ; 
and in other instances, too numerous to mention, he makes a 
similar use of the mere fact of omission. 

Note (34), p. 168. 
See Norton's Credibility of the Grospels, vol. i. pp. 74, 75. 

Note (35), p. 168. 

In point of fact there is scarcely a difficulty brought forward 
by Strauss which has not been again and again noticed and 
explained by biblical commentators. Mr. Norton correctly 
says of his volumes — "They present a collection from various 
authors of difficulties in the history contained in the Gospels, 
to which their expositor should particularly direct his atten- 

2 c 2 



388 NOTES. [Lect.VI. 

tion." The critical portion of them presents little which is 
novel. 

Note (36), p. 171. 

See Paley's Horoe Paulinos, ch. i. p. 1. 

Note (37), p. 171. 
Leben Jesu, § 13 ; vol. i. p. 60, E. T. 

Note (38), p. 172. 

If we take, for example, the earliest of St. Paul's Epistles, 
the first to the Thessalonians, we shall find that the following 
little coincidences between it and the Acts are unnoticed by 
Paley :— 

1. The identity in the order of names, "Paul, and Silvanus, 
and Timotheus" (1 Thess. i. 1; compare Acts xvii. 10, 15; 
xviii. 5). This was the order of dignity at the time, and was 
therefore naturally used ; but had the Epistle been forged after 
St. Paul's death, Timothy would probably have taken prece- 
dence of Silas, since owing to the circumstance of St. Paul 
addressing two epistles to him, his' became the name of far 
greater note in the Church. 

2. The peculiarly impressive mention of the Thessalonians 
as objects of the divine election (i. 4 ; elSores, a.Se\</>ol yya- 
irrnjuevoi, viro ®eov rrjv ifc\oyr)v v/xcov) seems to be an allusion 
to the fact of the vision which summoned St. Paul into Mace- 
donia (Acts xvi. 9), whereby the Macedonians were " chosen 
out " from the rest of the Western world to be the first Euro- 
pean recipients of the Gospel. The term i/c\oyr) is a rare one 
in Scripture, and is absent, except in this instance, from all 
St. Paul's earlier Epistles. It had been used, however, of St. 
Paul himself in the vision seen by Ananias (Acts ix. 15), with 
special reference to his similar selection by miraculous means 
as an object of the Divine favour. 

3. The great success of the Gospel at Thessalonica is strongly 
asserted in verse 5, (to evaryyektov rj/jLwv ov/c iyevr}6n et'9 ty-ta? 
iv \6ycp /jlovov, aXka /cal iv hvvdfiet, k. t. X.) Compare Acts 
xvii. 4 ; " And some of them (the Jews) believed, and con- 
sorted with Paul and Silas, and of the devout Greeks a great 
multitude, and of the chief women not a few." 



Lect. VI.] NOTES. 389 

4. The aorist tenses in cli. i. verses 5 and 6, and else- 
where (iyevtjOw, eyevijdn/Aev, iyevtfOrjTe, he^dfxevoi, eicnpy^afiev, 
k. t. X.), point naturally, but very unobtrusively, to a single 
visit on the part of St. Paul, which by the history of the Acts 
is exactly what had taken place. 

5. The peculiar nature of the Apostolic sufferings at Philippi 
is hinted at, without being fully expressed, in the term 
v/3pia0ivT€$ (ii. 2.) It was vftpts to scourge a Koman citizen. 

6. The statement that while at Thessalonica St. Paul toiled 
and laboured, that he might not be chargeable or burthensome 
to the converts (ii. 6, 9), though not directly confirmed by the 
history of the Acts, is in harmony with the fact that at Corinth, 
a few months afterwards, he wrought at his craft with Aquila 
and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 3), having the same object in view. 
(1 Cor. ix. 12 ; 2 Cor. xi. 9 ; xii. 13, &c.) 

7. The reference to the hindrance offered by the Jews to 
St. Paul's preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles (ii. 10), ac- 
cords both with the general conduct of the Jews elsewhere 
(Acts xiii. 45, 50, &c), and especially with their conduct at 
Thessalonica, where " being moved with envy " (fyXooo-avre?) 
at the conversion of the Gentiles, they " set all the city on an 
uproar." (Acts xvii. 5.) 

8. The expression, " we would have come unto you — even J, 
Paul — once and again," derives peculiar force from the cir- 
cumstance related in the Acts (xvii. 14-16), that after leaving 
Macedonia he was for some time alone at Athens, while Silas 
and Timothy remained at Beroea. 

9. The mention of "the brethren throughout all Mace- 
donia" in ch. iv. 10 harmonizes with the account in the Acts 
that St. Paul had founded churches at Philippi and Beroea as 
well as at Thessalonica. (Acts xvi. 12-40 ; xviii. 10-12.) 

10. The " affliction and distress " in which St. Paul says he 
was (iii. 7) at the time of Timothy's return from Macedonia, 
receive illustration from Acts xviii. 4-6, where we find that 
just at this period he was striving but vainly (eireiOe) to con- 
vert the Jews of Corinth, " pressed in spirit," and earnestly 
testifying, but to no purpose, so that shortly afterwards he had 
to relinquish the attempt. What "affliction" this would 
cause to St. Paul we may gather from Romans ix. 1-5. 



390 NOTES. [Lect. VI. 

Note (39), p. 173. 

I did not recollect, at the time of delivering my sixth Lec- 
ture, that any work professedly on this subject had been pub- 
lished. My attention has since been directed to two very 
excellent treatises on the point : one, the well-known Unde- 
signed Coincidences of the Kev. W. Blunt ; and the other, a 
valuable but very unpretending work, by the Kev. T. R. 
Birks, entitled, Horce Apostolical? and attached to an annotated 
edition of the Horce Paulince of Paley. The first chapter of this 
treatise contains a supplement to Paley's examination of the 
Pauline Epistles. It will well repay perusal ; though it is still 
far from exhausting the subject. Chapter ii. is concerned with 
the internal coincidences in the Acts of the Apostles; and 
chapter hi. with those in the Gospels. The treatment of this 
latter point is, unfortunately, but scanty. No more than 
twenty-five pages are devoted to it, the author remarking, that 
" in his present supplementary work, this branch of the subject 
is confined, of necessity, within narrow limits ; since its com- 
plete investigation would demand a distinct treatise, and the 
prosecution of some deep and difficult inquiries." {Horce 
Apostolicce, p. 188.) 

Note (40), p. 173. 
Leben Jesu, § 13 ; vol. i. p. 60, E. T. 

Note (41), p. 173. 

See on these points Home's Introduction, vol. v. pp. 422-435 ; 
and pp. 487, 488 ; Kitto's Cyclopaedia, vol. i. pp. 163-166, and 
826-832 ; and Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iv. part i. Prole- 
gomena, pp. 1-62. 

Note (42), p. 175. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 14, sub fin. vol. i. p. 84, E. T. 

Note (43), p. 176. 

Ibid. 1. s. c. See above, note 20 ; where a passage to this 
effect is quoted at length. 

* Ilorce Paulince, by William | A. M., late Fellow of Trinity College, 
Paley, D.D., with notes, and a Sup- j Cambridge: London, Religious Tract 
plementary Treatise, entitled, Horce | Society, 1850. 
Apo&toli&B, by the "Rev. T. E. Birks, \ 



Lect. VII.] NOTES. 301 



LECTURE VII. 



Note (l),p. 178. 

The only exception to this general rule, among the strictly 
historical books, is the Book of Euth, which is purely biogra- 
phical. It belongs to the Christology of the Old Testament, 
but it has no bearing on the history of the nation. 

Note (2), p. 179. 

So Lardner — " It is plainly the design of the historians of 
the New Testament to write of the actions of Jesus Christ, 
chiefly those of his public Ministry, and to give an account of 
his death and resurrection, and of some of the first steps by 
which the doctrine which he had taught made its way in the 
world. But though this was their main design, and they have 
not undertaken to give us the political state or history of the 
countries in which these things were done, yet in the course 
of their narration they have been led unavoidably to mention 
many persons of note, and to make allusions and references 
to the customs and tenets of the people, whom Jesus Christ 
and his apostles were concerned with." (Credibility, &c. 
vol. i. p. 7.) 

Note (3), p. 179. 

Hence the certainty with which literary forgeries, if histo- 
rical, are detected, in all cases where we possess a fair know- 
ledge of the time and country to which they profess to be- 
long. The alleged "Epistles of Phalaris," the pretended 
Manetho, the spurious Letters of Plato and of Chion, were 
soon exposed by critics, who stamped them indelibly with the 
brand of forgery, chiefly by reason of their failure in this par- 
ticular. It is important to bear in mind, in this connexion, 
the fact that there is no period in the whole range of ancient 



392 



NOTES. 



Lect. VII. 



history, whereof we possess a more full and exact knowledge 
than we do of the first century of our era. 

Note (4), p. 181. 

These testimonies have been adduced by almost all writers 
on the Evidences of the Christian Keligion ; but I do not feel 
justified in omitting them from the present review. They are 
as follows : — 

Tacitus says, speaking of the fire which consumed Koine in 
Nero's time, and of the general belief that he had caused it — 
" Ergo abolendo ruinori Nero subdidit reos, et qusesitissimis 
poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos ap- 
pellabat. Auetor nominis ejus Christus, Tiberio imperitante, 
per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum, supplicio adfectus erat. 
Repressaque in prsesens exitiabilis superstitio rursus erum- 
pebat, non modo per Judceam, originem ejus mali, sed per 
Urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia, aut pudenda, con- 
fluunt celebranturque. Igitur primi correpti qui fatebantur, 
deinde indicio eorum ingens multitudo, haud perinde in-crimine 
incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. Et pere- 
untibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti, laniatu 
canum interirent, aut crucibus affixi, aut flammandi, atque ubi 
defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. Hortos 
suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat, et circense ludicrum edebat, 
habitu aurigse permistus plebi, vel curriculo insistens. Unde 
quanquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos, 
miseratio oriebatur, tanquam non utilitate publica sed in 
sasvitiam unius absumerentur." (Annul, xv. 44.) 

Suetonius says briefly in reference to the same occasion — 
" Afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis 
novce et maleficae." ( Fit. Neron. § 16.) And with a possible, 
though not a certain, reference to our Lord — " Judaeos, im- 
pulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes, Roma [Claudius] ex- 
pulit." (Fit Claud. §25.) 

Juvenal, with a meaning which cannot be mistaken," when 



Compare the observations of the 
old Scholiast on the passage — " la 
mvmere Neronis arsernnt vivi, de 
([iiihus illc jusserat cereos fieri, qui 
luccrent spectatoribus ;" and again, 



" Maleficos homines (compare Sue- 
tonius's ' malefic^ superstitionis') 
teda, papyro, cera supervestiebat, 

sicque ad ignem admoveri jubcLat, 
ut arderent." 



Lect. yil.] NOTES. 393 

the passage of Tacitus above quoted has once been read, 
remarks — 

Pone Tigellinum, taeda lucebis in ilia 

Qua stantes ardent, qui fixo gutture fumant, 

Et latum media sulcum deducis arena. 

(Sat. i. 155-157.) 

Pliny writes to Trajan — " Solenne est mihi, domine, omnia de 
quibus dubito, ad te referre. Quis enim potest melius vel cuncta- 
tionem meam regere, vel ignorantiam instruere ? Cognitioni- 
bus de Christianis interiui nunquam : ideo nescio quid et 
quatenus aut puniri soleat, aut quseri. Nee mediocriter haesi- 
tavi, sitne aliquod discrimen aetatum, an quamlibet teneri nihil 
a robustioribus differant : deturne poenitentise venia, an ei qui 
omnino Christianus fuit, desisse non prosit : nomen ipsum, eti- 
amsi nagitiis careat, an flagitia cohaarentia nomini puniantur. 
Interim in iis qui ad me tanquam Christiani deferebantur, hunc 
sum sequutus modum. Interrogavi ipsos, an essent Christiani : 
confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogavi, supplicium minatus : 
perseverantes duci jussi. Neque enim dubitabam, qualecunque 
esset quod faterentur, pervicaciam certe, et inflexibilem obsti- 
nationem debere puniri. Fuerunt alii similis amentiaB : quos, 
quia cives Komani erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos ; mox 
ipso tractu, ut fieri solet, diffundente se crimine, plures species 
inciderunt. Propositus est libellus sine auctore, multorum 
nomina continens, qui negarent se esse Christianos, aut fuisse, 
quum, praBeunte me, deos appellarent, et imagini tuse, quam 
propter hoc jusseram cum simulacris numinum afferri, thure ac 
vino supplicarent, prseterea maledicerent Christo : quorum 
nihil cogi posse dicuntur, qui sunt revera Christiani. Ergo 
dimittendos putavi. Alii ab indice nominati, esse se Christi- 
anos dixerunt, et mox negaverunt : fuisse quidem, sed desisse, 
quidam ante triennium, quidam ante plures annos, non nemo 
etiam ante viginti quoque. Omnes et imaginem tuam, deo- 
rumque simulacra venerati sunt ; ii et Christo maledixerunt. 
Affirmabant autem, hanc fuisse summam vel culpse sua3, vel 
erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire : car- 
menque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem ; seque 
sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne 



394 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

latrocinia, ne adulteria comniitterent, ne fidem fallerent, ne 
depositum appellati abnegarent: quibus peractis morem sibi 
discedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendurn cibum, 
promiscuum tamen, et innoxium : quod ipsum facere desisse 
post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tua hetaerias esse 
vetueram. Quo magis necessarium credidi, ex duabus ancillis, 
quae ministrae dicebantur, quid esset veri et per tormenta 
quserere. Sed nihil aliud inveni, quam superstitionem pravam 
et immodicam, ideoque, dilata cognitione, ad consulendum te 
decurri. Yisa est enim mihi res digna consultatione, maxime 
propter periclitantium numerum. Multi enim omnis aetatis, 
omnis ordinis, utriusque sexus etiam, vocantur in periculum, 
et vocabuntur. Neque enim civitates tantura, sed vicos etiam 
atque agros superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est : quae 
videtur sisti et corrigi posse. Certe satis constat, prope jam 
desolata templa coepisse celebrari, et sacra solennia diu inter- 
missa repeti : passimque vaenire victimas, quarum adhuc ra- 
rissimus emptor inveniebatur. Ex quo facile est opinari, quae 
turba hominum emendari possit, si sit poenitentiae locus." 
(Plin. Mpist. x. 97.) 

Trajan replies — " Actum quern debuisti, mi Secunde, in ex- 
cutiendis causis eorum qui Christiani ad te delati fuerant, 
secutus es. Neque enim in universum aliquid, quod quasi 
certam formam habeat, constitui potest. Conquirendi non 
sunt : si cleferantur et arguantur, puniendi sunt : ita tamen ut 
qui negayerit se Christianum esse, idque re ipsa manifestum 
fecerit, id est, supplicando diis nostris, quam vis suspectus in prae- 
teritum fuerit, veniam ex poenitentia impetret. Sine auctore 
vero propositi libelli, nullo crimine, locum habere debent. Nam 
et pessimi exempli, nee nostri seculi est." (Ibid. x. 98.) 

Adrian, in bis rescript addressed to Minucius Fundanus, the 
Proconsul of Asia, says v — Mwovklg) Qovvhdvco' iiriaro\r]v 
iSe^d/jLTjv ypcKpeLcrdv fiot diro %epevviov Tpavcavov, \a\JLirpoTdrov 
dvhpos, ovTtva av SteSefo). Ov So/cet \xoi ovv to 7rpd<y/jia atyrr)- 
rov KaTaXtirelv, tva fJbrjTe oi avOpocnroL Tapdrrcovrcu, /cat tols 
(TVfcocfrdvTaLs yoprjyla tcafcovpyias irapaa^eBT). Et ovv aacfrois 
€t9 ravT7]v tt]V d^lcoo-tv ol eirapyjbOirai hvvavrai Sua^vpl^eadac 
Kara rcov ILptartavcov, C09 teal irpo ftr/fiaro? diroKplvaaOai,, iirl 

v The Latin original is lost, and we possess only Eusebins's translation. 



Lect. VIL] NOTES. 395 

TOVTO /JLOVOV TpairWCTLV, Kdl OV/C a^l(t)(76<TiV } OvSk fJLOVdLS (3oaZ<?. 

TioKXcp yap (JuaXkov Trpoarjfcev, el ti<$ KdTrjyopelv /3ovXocro, tovtq 
o~e Scajivo)(TK6tv. El' T£9 ovv KdTrjjopei Kai heiKwai ti irapa tovs 

VQjAQVS TTpdTTOVTdS, OVTOd? Opl%€ KdTd T7]V SvVd/MV TOV CLfJidpTr)- 
/LLCLTOS' 6>9 fJLCl TOV 'ttpd/ckid €i T£9 GV KO$dVT ld<$ %aplV TOVTO 7TpO- 

Teivoi, 8td\dfjL/3dV€ virep tt)^ SeivoTrjTos, zeal (fypovTc^e 07r&>9 dv 
eKhiKrjo-eld^. (Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 9.) 

Note (5), p. 181. 

I refer especially to Strauss and his school, who attach no 
importance at all to the existence of Christ, but still allow 
it as a fact which is indisputable. (See the Leben Jesu, 
passim.) 

Note (6), p. 182. 

Ch. ii. pp. 24-30. 

Note (7), p. 182. 

One slight reference is found, or rather suspected, in Seneca 
(Epist. xiv.), one in Dio Chrysostom {Or at. Corinthiac. xxxvii. 
p. 463), none in Pausanias, one (see the next note) in the 
Epictetus of Arrian. 

Note (8), p. 183. 

Epictet. Dissertat. iv. 7, § § 5, 6 ; "A.v tls ovv koX wpo^ ttjv 
KTrjaiv (bcrdVT(a<; eyr) KdQamep OUT09 777309 to acofid, real 77-/909 

Td T6KVd KOI T7)V yVVdLKd, K. T. A. 7T0409 €TL TOVTO) TVpdVVO? (/>o/3e- 

pos ; rj TToioi Sopvcpopoi ; rj iroldi fid^dtpdt dVTcov ; E2t<x vtto 

fLdvidS fJL€V SiJVdTdl Tt9 OVTO) BidTeOfjVdl 7Tp09 TdVTd, Kdl VTO 

eOovs olTaXcXatoi. 

Note (9), p. 183. 

The passage in the second book of the Discourses (c. 9, 
§ 20), which has been supposed by some to refer to Christians, 
seems really to intend only those whom it mentions — viz. the 
Jews. (See Lardner, Credibility, &c, vol. iv. p. 49 ; Fabricius 
ad Dion, xxxvii. 17.) 

Note (10), p. 184. 

This point has been slightly touched by Paley (Evidences, 
part i. ch. 5, pp. 70, 71), and insisted on at toe length by 
Lardner. (Credibility, &c, vol. iv. pp. 50, 78, 160, &c.) 



396 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

Note (11), p. 185. 

Josephus was born in a. d. 37, the first year of the reign of 
Caligula, and the fourth after our Lord's Ascension. He was 
bred up at Jerusalem, where he seems to have continued, with 
slight interruptions, till he was 26 years of age. He would 
thus have been, as boy and man, a witness of the principal 
occurrences at Jerusalem mentioned in the Acts, subsequently 
to the accession of Herod Agrippa. 

Note (12), p. 185. 

See Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 9, § 1. . This passage has been 
much disputed, and its genuineness is disallowed even by 
Lardner. {Credibility, &c, vol. iii. pp. 352-354.) But I agree 
with Burfon {Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 287) and Paley {Evidences, 
part i. ch. 5, p. 69), that there is no sufficient reason for the 
suspicions which have attached to the passage. 

Note (13), p. 185. 

Josephus went to Koine in his 27th year, A. d. 63, and re- 
mained there some time. Probably he witnessed the com- 
mencement of the Neronic persecution in a. d. 64, after the 
great fire which broke out in July of that year. (See above, 
note 4, page 392.) 

Note (14), p. 185. 

f O "Avavos . . . KaOi^ei avveSpcov Kpncov' ical irapayaycov eh 
avTo tov dSe\<pbv ^\rjcrov rod Xpiarov \eyo jjuevov, Id/cco- 
/3o? ovopLa avTG), /cal tlvcls eripovs, &>? Trapavo/xncravrcov Karv- 
yoplav 7roL7]crd/jbevo^, 7rape8cofce XevcrOyaofievov^. (Ant. Jud. xx. 
9, § 1.) According to Eusebius {Hist. Eccles. ii. 23 ), Jose- 
phus had the following also in another place ; Tavra oe 
o-v/jL{3e/3r]fcev 'lovSalocs /car ifc&Uncnv 'Ia/cco/3ov rod Si/caiov, o? 
rjv dSe\(j)b<; 'Irjcrov rod Xeyo/xevov X.pLarov' eiTeihrjirep hucaioTa- 
rov avrbv ovra ol 'IovScuol direKreivav. 

I regard the arguments which have been brought against 
the famous passage in our copies of Josephus concerning our 
Lord's life and teaching {Ant. Jud. xviii. 3, § 3) as having 
completely established its spuriousness. (See Lardner, Credi- 
bility, vol. iii. pp. 537-542 ; and, on the other side, Home, 
Introduction, vol. i. Appendix, ch. vii.) 



Lect. VII. ] NOTES. 397 

Note (15), p. 185. 
See Paley's Evidences, part i. ch. 7, p. 71 ; and Dr. Traill's 
Essay on the Personal Character of Josephus, prefixed to his 
Translation, pp. 19, 20. 

Note (16), p. 186. 

The probable value of these writings may be gathered from 
the Fragments of Celsus, preserved by Origen. Celsus qnotes 
from all the Gospels, allows that they were written by the 
disciples of Jesns, and confirms all the main facts of our Lord's 
life, even his miracles (which he ascribes to magic) ; only 
denying his resurrection, his raising of others, and his being 
declared to be the Son of God by a voice from heaven. A 
collection of the " testimonies " which his Fragments afford 
will be found in Lardner. (Credibility, &c. vol. iv. pp. 115 
et seq.) 

Note (17), p. 186. 

See Socrat. Hist. Eccles. i. 9, p. 32 ; Justinian, Nov. 42, c. 
1 ; Mosheim, De Rebus Christ, ante Const antin. Magn. p. 561. 

Note (18), p. 186. 
Apolog. i. p. 65, and p. 70. 

Note (19), p. 186. 
So at least Justin believed. (Apol. i. p. 70.) Tertullian 
adds, that they contained an account of our Saviour's resur- 
rection, of his appearances to his disciples, and his ascension 
into heaven before their eyes. (Apolog. c. 21.) Eusebius 
(Hist. Eccles. ii. 2), and Orosius (vii. 4), bear nearly similar 
testimony. As Dr. Burton remarks (Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 34), 
"It is almost impossible to suppose that the Fathers were 
mistaken in believing some such document to be preserved in 
the archives." Their confident appeals to it shew that they 
believed its substance not to be unfavourable to our Lord's 
character. Whether they exactly knew its contents, or no, 
must depend primarily on the question, whether the documents 
of this class, preserved in the State Archives, were generally 
accessible to the public. They were certainly not published ; 
and as they were of the nature of secret communications to 
the Emperor, it may be doubted whether it was easy to obtain 



398 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

a sight of them. Still perhaps the Christians may have learnt 
the contents of Pilate's " Acts," from some of those members 
of the Imperial household (Phil. iv. 22) or family (Burton, 
Uccles. Mist. vol. i. p. 367), who became converts at an early 
period. 

Note (20), p. 188. • 

On the extent of the dominions of Herod the Great, see 
Joseph. Ant. Jud. xiv. 14-18. He died, as we have already 
seen (supra, Lecture VI. note 1), in the year of Koine 750. 
On his death, there was a division of his territories among his 
sons, Archelaus receiving Judsea, Samaria, and Idumaea ; An- 
tipas, Galilee and Persea ; Philip, Trachonitis and the adjoining- 
countries. (Joseph. De Bell Jud. i. 33, § 8, and ii. 6, § 3.) 
Ten .years later (a. d. 8) Archelaus was removed, and his do- 
minions annexed to the Koman Empire, being placed under a 
Procurator (Coponius), who was subordinate to the President 
of Syria, (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 1, § 1), while Philip and An- 
tipas continued to rule their principalities. Thirty-three years 
after (a. d. 41), Herod Agrippa, by the favour of Claudius, 
re-united the several provinces of Palestine under his own 
government, and reigned over the whole territory which had 
formed the kingdom of Herod the Great. (Ibid. xix. 5, § 1.) 
At his death, a. d. 44, the Koman authority was established 
over the whole country, which was administered by a Procu- 
rator holding under the President of Syria. To the younger 
Agrippa, however, king of Chalcis, a power was presently en- 
trusted (a. d. 48) of managing the sacred treasury at Jerusa- 
lem, superintending the temple, and appointing the Jewish 
High Priests. (Ibid. xx. 1.) 

- Note (21), p. 188. 

Tacitus sacrifices accuracy to brevity in his sketch of these 
changes : — 

" Regnum ab Antonio Herodi datum, victor Augustus auxit. 
Post mortem Herodis, nihil expectato Csesare, Simon quidam 
regium nomen invaserat. Is a Quintilio Varo, obtinente Sy- 
riam, punitus ; et gentem coercitam liberi Herodis tripartite) 
rexere. Sub Tiberio quies : dein, jussi a Caio Caesare (i. e. 
Caligula) effigiem ejus in tempi o locare, arma potius sumpsere ; 



Lect. VIL] NOTES. 399 

quern motum Caesaris mors diremit. Claudius, defunctis re- 
gibus, aut in modicum redactis, Judaeam provinciam equitibus 
Komanis, aut libertis permisit." {Hist. v. 9.) 

Elsewhere, he sometimes falls into actual error, as where he 
assigns the death of Agrippa, and the reduction of Judaea 
into the form of a Eoman province, to the 9th of Claudius, 
A. D. 49. (Annal xi. 23.) 

Dio's notices are very confused. He seems scarcely able to 
distinguish one Herod from another. (Hist. Bom. xlix. p. 405, 
E. ; liii. p. 526, D. ; Iv. p. 567, B. ; and lx. p. 670, B.) 

Note (22), p. 188. 
See the last note. Tacitus appears, in both the passages, 
to place the first reduction of Judaea into the position of a 
Eoman province under Claudius, upon the death of Agrippa. 
Yet he elsewhere notices the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, 
in the reign of Tiberius. {Ann. xv. 44 ; quoted in note 4.) 

Note (23), p. 189. 
Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 1, § 3. It has not always been seen 
that Festus referred (aveOero) St. Paul's case to Agrippa on 
account of his occupying this position. Dean Afford, how- 
ever, distinctly recognises this feature of the transaction. 
(Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 252.) 

Note (24), p. 189. 
It has been questioned whether the Jews themselves had 
any right of capital punishment at this time. (Lardner, Cre- 
dibility, &c. vol. i. pp. 21-48 ; Olshausen, Bibliseher Commen- 
tary vol. ii. p. 501.) Josephus certainly represents the power 
as one which the Romans reserved to themselves from the 
first establishment of the procuratorship. (Be Bell. Jud. ii. 
8, § 1 ; compare Ant. Jud. xx. 9, § 1.) But, as Dean Alford 
remarks, the history of Stephen and of the " great persecu- 
tion " (Stcoyfjbbs fjueyas) soon after, seems to shew, " that the 
Jews did, by connivance of, or in the absence of the Procura- 
tor, administer summary punishments of this kind." (Greek 
Testament, vol. ii. p. 75 ; compare Joseph. Ant. Jud. 1. s. c.) 

Note (25), p. 190. 
See Matt. v. 26 ; x. 29; xvii. 25; xviii. 28; xxvi. 53; xxvii. 
26, 27, and 65 : Mark vi. 27 ; &c The terms, it will be ob- 



400 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

served, are such as either belong to the military force, the 
revenue, or the office of governor. They are such therefore 
as would naturally be introduced by a foreign dominant 
power. 

Note (26), p. 190. 
See Mark vi. 7, and 40 ; vii. 11 ; x. 51 ; xiii. 14 ; &c. The 
number of instances might of course be greatly increased. 
Among the most noticeable are Matt. v. 18 (Iwra ev rj /mla 
fcepala) ; v. 22 (pa/cd) ; v. 29 (yeevva) ; vi. 24 (p,a/jueovds, conf. 
Luke xvi. 9, &c); Mark iii. 17 (ftoavepyes) ; v. 41 (raXiOa 
KovfJLi) ; vii. 34 (e<pcf>a6d) ; xi. 9 (coaavvd) ; John i. 43 (fcrjcpds). 
Compare also the thoroughly Hebrew character of the Can- 
ticles in Luke i. and ii. 

Note (27), p. 190. 

Joseph. De Bell. Jud. vii. 8, § 1 : — 'Ey eVero 'yap 6 xpovos 
e/celvos iravTohanrr)^ ev tols 'Iof&uot? 7rovr)pla<; iroXvcjyopos, cbs 
fJLTjhev ica/clas epyov dirpaicTOV KaiaXiirelv, firjS' el tis eirtvoia Sia- 
TrXdrreov iOeXrjaecev eyeiv dv tl tccuvorepov e^evpelv. ovtcos Ihia 
re teal /cow?) iravres ivocrrjaav, koX irpbs virepftaXelv dXXrjXovs 
ev re rat? irpbs rbv ©ew acre/3eicw? zeal rals eh tovs ifKiqaiov 
dhuciais, ecpiXovel/cwo-av, ol puev Svvarol rd irXtjOrj Kaicovvres, ol 
iroXXol Se tovs hvvarovs dnvoKXvvai cnrevSovTes' rjv yap i/celvoLs 
fiev eiriOvfJula tov rvpavvelv, tols Be tov j^td^eaOai /cat rd tcjv 
eviropcov Biapird^euv. Compare Ant. Jud. xx. 7, § 8 ; Bell. 
Jud. v. 13, § 6 ; and x. § 5. 

Note (28), p. 190. 
Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 9, § 3 ; xx. 4, § 3 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 19, 
§ 1, &c. On one occasion it appears that more than two and 
a half millions of persons had come up to Jerusalem to wor- 
ship. (Bell. Jud. vi. 9, § 3.) 

Note- (29), p. 190. 
Ant. Jud. xv. 7, § 8 : — 'Ev tois r IepocroXvf.ioL<; Svo rjv fypovpta, 
ev fiev avTr)<; 7-779 TroXecos, erepov 8e tov lepov' /cal tovtcov ol 
tcparovTes, viroyeipiov to irdv e6vo$ ecryfiicao-i. ra? jxev yap Ov- 
erlap ov/c dvev tovtcov olov re yevecrOai. to Se pur] TavTa avvTeXelv 
ovBevl ^lovBalcov BvvaTov, tov %?jv eToiflOTepov irapa^copTjcrdvTCOV 
r) Tr}? Oprja/cela^, r)v els tov ®ebv eltoOacri avvTeXelv- 



Lect. VII.] NOTES. 401 

Note (30), p. 190. 
Not only was Caligula's attempt to have his statue set* up 
in the temple resisted with determination (Joseph. Ant. Jud. 
xviii. 8) ; but when the younger Agrippa, by raising the 
height of his house, obtained a view into the temple-courts, 
the greatest indignation was felt (petvm exaXeiraivov.) The 
Jews immediately raised a wall to shut out his prospect, 
and when Festus commanded them to remove it, they 
positively refused, declaring that they would rather die than 
destroy any portion of the sacred fabric .(g}i/ yap oi>x vtto- 
/uLeveLv, Ka6aipe6evTo<s tlvos fxepovs rod lepov). See Ant. Jud. 
xx. 8, § 11 ; and on the general subject, compare Philo, Be 
Legat. ad Caium, pp. 1022, 1023. 

Note (31), p. 191. 
Ant. Jud. xv. 8, §§ 1-4. 

Note (32), p. 191. 

See Lardner's Credibility, &c, book i. ch. 9; vol. i. pp. 
110-121. 

Note (33), p. 191. 

Josephus tells us, that when Cyrenius came to take the 
census of men's properties throughout Judaea, a controversy 
arose among the Jews on the legality of submission to foreign 
taxation. Judas of Galilee (see Acts v. 37) maintained that 
it was a surrender of the theocratic principle ; while the bulk 
of the chief men, including some considerable number of the 
Pharisees, took the opposite view, and persuaded the people 
to submit themselves. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 1, § 1.) 

Note (34), p. 191. 
Ant. Jud. xx. 6, § 1 ; — Yiverai he ical ^a/ubapelrais 7rpo? 
'lovSalov 9 e%0pa Bo air lav roiavrrjV e6o$ rjv tols YaXiXaioi? ev 
rals eoprais et9 rrjv lepdv ttoXlv irapaytvofiivacs oSevetv Sid ttjs 
Xafjuapicov %cbpa<;. Kal rore ica& 68bv avrols fcayjuurjs Tivaias Ae- 
yofJLevrjs, ttjs ev fjuedopiw Keifxevrj^ Xcifjiapelas re teal rod /LueydXov 
irehlov, rives crvvdyjravres f^d^vv ttoWovs clvtcov avaipovo-w. 

Note (35), p. 191. 

Ibid, xviii. 1, §§3 and 4. Note especially the following. 
Of the Pharisees — "Addvarov re tayyv rah tyv %at9 irlaris av- 

2 D 



402 NOTES, [Lect. VII. 

tols elvai, teal vtto ^Oovbs SiKatcocreis re teal tl/jlcls oh aperrjs re 
Kai kcuclcls eTUTTqSevo-Ls ev tw /3/eo yeyove. Of tlie Saddu- 
cees — ^ZaSSv/caioL? Se ra? ^v^as 6 X070? crvvafyavi^ev tols 
crcb/jLcio-Lv. Compare Acts xxiii. 8. 

Note ( 36 ), p. 191. 

Ibid. 1. s. c. \Ol QapLaaioi] rols Sry/xot? TnOavooraroL Tvyya- 

vovcri, teal oirbcra Oela evywv re /ecu lepcov it oir) crews e^rjyrjcrei rfj 

etceivcov Tvyyavovcri 7rpacrcr6/ji6va. \T00v ZaBBovtcalcov] 6 X070? 

et9 okiyovs avBpa? ci<pUero, tovs pbkvTQi Trpcbrovs tol? d^Lco/jiacri. 

Note ( 37 ), p. 192. 
Bell. Jud. vi. 5, § 4. To he eirdpav avrovs [iciktcrTa 777509 rbv 
TToXefjbov, r\v ^07707^09 afA(pL/3oXo$ . . . ev rots lepois evp^fievos 
ypdfjLfjLacriv, &>? Kara rbv Kaipbv etcelvov curb 7-779 %<wpa9 ™? 
avrwv ap^ei rrjs oltcovjjLevrjs. 

Note (38), p. 192. 
Sueton. Vit. Vespasian. § 4 ; — " Percrebuerat Orient e toto 
vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore Judaea 
profecti rerum potirentur. Id de Imperatore Eomano, quantum 
postea eventu paruit, prsedictum, Juclaai ad se trahentes, re- 
bellarunt." Compare Vit. Octav. § 94, and Virg. Eclog. iv. 

Note (39), p. 192. 
Tacit. Histor. v. 13 ; "Quas pauci in metum trahebant : 
pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotmn litteris contineri, 
eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens, profectique Judaea 
rerum potirentur." 

Note (40), p. 192. 
Leben Jem, § 34 ; vol. i. p. 220, E. T. 

Note (41), p. 192. 
See Pbilo, De Legatione ad Caium, p. 1022, D. E. For the 
portraiture of Josepbus, see above, note 27. 

Note (42), p. 193. 
This passage is given by Wetstein (Nov. Test. Gr. vol. ii. 
p. 563), and Dean Alford (G-reek Testament, vol. ii. p. 175) as 
from Xenopbon De Rep. Atheniens. I have not succeeded in 
verifying the reference. 



Lect. VII. j NOTES. 403 

Note (43), p. 193. 
Liv. xlv. 27, ad fin. 

Note (44), p. 193. 
How attractive to strangers Athens was, even in her de- 
cline, may be seen from the examples of Cicero, Germanicus, 
Pansanias, and others. (See Conybeare and Howson's Life of 
St. Paul, vol. i. pp. 398, 399.) On the greediness of the 
Athenians after novelty, see Demosth. Philipp. i. p. 43 (rj ftov- 
\ea0e, elire /jlol, irepuovre^ avrwv irvOecrOat tcara rrjv ayopdv 
Xeyeral tl kcllvov; yevotro yap av ri tcatvorepov y) M.afceScop 
avr)p /c.t.X.) ; Philipp. Hpist. pp. 156, 157 ; 2Elian. Var. Hist. 
v. 13 ; Schol. ad Thucyd. iii. 38, &c. On their religiousness, 
compare Pansan. i. 24, § 3 (A07)valots nrepiacroTepov tl rj rofc 
aWoi,? e? ra 6ela ian cnrovSrjs) ; Xen. Pep. Atheniens. iii. 
§ 1, and § 8 ; Joseph. Contra Apion. ii. 11 (rovs 'AOrjvalovs 
ever eftevT cut ov<$ reov 'J^Wr/vow anravre^ Xeyovatv) ; Strab. v. 3, 
§ 18 ; ^Elian. Var. Hist. v. 17 ; Philostrat. Vit. Apollon. vi. 3 ; 
Dionys. Hal. Be Jud. Thuc. § 40 ; and among later authors, 
see Mr, Gfrote's History of Greece, vol. iii. pp. 229-232. 

Note (45), p. 193. 

See the Life and Epistles of St. Paul, by Messrs. Conybeare 
and Howson, vol. ii. pp. 66 et seq. (1.) The " Qreat Goddess, 
Diana," is fonnd to have borne that title as her epitheton usi- 
tatum, both from an inscription (Boeckh, Corpus Inscript. 
2963 C), and from Xenophon (Ephes. i. p. 15 ; ofjuvvco re rrjv 
TrciTpiov rj/jLiv 0ebv, tt]V /JbeyaXnv 'E^ecrtW "Apre/uuv). (2.) The 
" Asiarchs " are mentioned on various coins and inscriptions. 
(3.) The "town-clerk" (ypa/jL/uLarevs) of Ephesus is likewise 
mentioned in inscriptions (Boeckh, No. 2963 C, No. 2966, and 
No. 2990). (4.) The curious word vewKopo^ (Acts xix. 35), 
literally " sweeper " of the temple, is also found in inscriptions 
and on coins, as an epithet of the Ephesian people (Boeckh, 
No. 2966). The " silver shrines of Diana," the " court-days," 
the "deputies" or "proconsuls" (avQvircuroi) might receive 
abundant classical illustration. The temple was the glory of 
the ancient world c — enough still remains of the "theatre" to 
give evidence of its former greatness. 

c Plin. xxxv. 21 ; Strab. xiv. 1 ; Phil. Byz. De Sept. Orb. Spectaculis. 

2 d 2 



404 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

Note (46), p. 193. 
Compare Luke xxiii. 2; John xix. 12-15; Acts xxv. 12 
and 26 ; xxvi. 32 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17 ; 1 Pet. ii. 13 and 17. 

Note ( 47 ), p. 194. 

The Koman proyinces under the empire were administered 
either by proconsuls, or legates, or in a few instances by pro- 
curators. The technical Greek name for the proconsul is 
av0i>7ra,To$ (Polyb. xxi. 8, § 11), as that for the consul is 
vttcltos. 'Av6v7raroi are mentioned by St. Luke in Cyprus 
(Acts xiii. 7), at Ephesus (ib. xix. 38), and at Corinth (ib. 
xviii. 12, where the verb avOvirareveiv expresses the office of 
Gallio). In every case the use of the term is historically 
correct. (See below, notes 104 and 108.) Other officers are 
not so distinctly designated. Legates do not occur in the 
history ; and the Greek possessing no term correspondent to 
procurator, such officers appear only as rjye/juoves (governors), 
a generic term applicable to proconsuls also. (See Luke ii. 
2 ; iii. 1 ; Matt, xxvii. 2 ; Acts xxiii. 24 ; xxvi. 30, &c.) 

The anxiety to avoid tumults may be observed in the con- 
duct of Pilate (Matt, xxvii. 24) ; of the authorities at Ephesus 
(Acts xix. 35-41) ; and of Lysias (Acts xxi. 32 ; xxii. 24). 
The governors were liable to recall at any moment, and knew 
that they would probably be superseded, if they allowed 
troubles to break out. 

Note (48), p. 194. 
See especially Gallio's words (Acts xviii. 14-16). Compare 
Acts xxiii. 29 ; and xxviii. 30, 31. On the general tolerance 
of the Komans, see Lardner's Credibility, vol. i. pp. 95 et 
seq. 

Note (49), p. 194. 

In a Eescript of Severus and Caracalla (Digest, xlviii. 17, 
1), we read — "Et hoc jure utimur, ne absentes damnentur, 
neque enim inaudita causa quenquam damnari sequitatis 
ratio patitur." Compare Dionys. Hal. vii. 53, p. 441. The 
odium incurred by Cicero for proceeding without formal trial 
against the Catiline conspirators (Ep. ad Famil. v. 2, p. 60, 
b), is an indication of the value attached to the principle in 
question. 



Lect. VII.] NOTES. 405 

Note ( 50 ), p. 194. 
Acts xxii. 28. Dio says of Antony — Trap Ihcorcov rjyvpo- 
Xoyrjo-e . . . aXkois TroXtreiav, aXkoLs arekeiav ttcoXoov. And 
of Claudius — iireiSav iv ttclgiv a>? elirelv ol 'Vco/^aloc rcov ijevoov 

7rp0€T€TljJL7)VT0, TToWoL T€ CLVTCOV TTapa T6 CLVTOV 6K6LV0V 

r)TovvTO, teal irapa M.ea(ra\ivr}<z teal rcov Y^aiaapemv wvovvro. 
(lx. 17, p. 676, C.) Citizenship by birth on the part of a 
foreigner might arise (1) from his being a native of some 
colony or municipium ; (2) from a grant of citizenship, on 
account of service rendered, to his father, or a more remote 
ancestor ; or (3) from his father, or a more remote ancestor, 
having purchased his freedom. Dio speaks, a little before 
the passage last quoted, of many Lycians having been de- 
prived of their Koman citizenship by Claudius. That Jews 
were often Eoman citizens appears from Josephus. (Ant. 
Jud. xiv. 10, §§ 13, 14, 16, &c.) 

Note ( 51 ), p. 194. 
Acts xxv. 11. Suetonius says of Augustus — " Appellationes 
quotannis urbanorum quidem litigatorum prsetori delegavit ; 
ac provincialium consularibus viris, quos singulos cujusque- 
provinciaB negotiis prseposuisset." ( Vit. Oetav. c. 33.) Pliny 
probably refers to cases where the right of appeal had been 
claimed, when he says of the Bithynian Christians — " Fuerunt 
alii similis amentia?, quos, quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi 
in urbem remittendos." (Ep. ad Traj. x. 97.) 

Note (52), p. 194. 

The humane treatment of prisoners is an occasional feature 
of the Eoman system. (See Acts xxiv. 23, and xxviii. 16 and 
30.) Lardner (Credibility, vol. i. p. 128) observes that the 
treatment of Herod Agrippa I. closely illustrates that of St. 
Paul. Soon after his first imprisonment, by the influence of 
Antonia, his friends were allowed free access to him, and 
permitted to bring him food and other comforts. (Joseph. 
Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, § 7.) On the death of Tiberius, whom he 
had offended, Caligula enlarged him further, permitting him 
to return and live in his own house, where he was still guarded, 
but less strictly than before. (Ibid. § 10. tov 'AypLTnrav 
i/ceXevaev etc rod arparoTreBov /jLeraar^aecv et? rrjv oitelav iv 



406 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

fj irporepov rj Bedrjvat hiatrav el^ev' ware ev Odporei Xolttov rjye 
rd irepl avrrj<;' (f)v\afcr) fiev yap /ecu r r) p rj a 1 9 r)v, fiera /juevroL 
avecrews r?)? eh ttjv Slcutclv. Compare the order of Felix 
with regard to St. Paul — Siaragd/jLevos ra> efcarovrdpyrj 
rnpelcrOat avrbv, eyew re aveaiv k. t. A. Acts xxiv. 23.) 

Note (53), "p. 194. 
On one occasion we find St. Paul " bound with two chains " 
(Acts xxi. 33) ; but commonly we hear of his " chain" 
(a\vcri<>) in the singular. (Acts xxviii. 20 ; Ephes. vi. 20 ; 
2 Tim. i. 16.) Now it is abundantly apparent from Seneca 
{Be Tranquill. 10, Epist. 5) and other writers (Tacit. Ann. 
iv. 28, &c), that prisoners were commonly fastened by a 
chain passed from their right wrist to the left wrist of their 
keeper. Where greater security was desired, a prisoner had 
two keepers, and a second chain was passed from his left 
wrist to the second keeper's right. The keeper to whom a 
prisoner was bound was called avvSeTws. 

Note (54), p. 194. 

Matt, xxvii. 27 ; Acts xx. 6 ; xxiv. 23 ; xxviii. 1, 16. The 
military custody (custodia militaris) of the Romans is well 
known to writers on antiquities. Ulpian says, that when a 
person was arrested, it was the business of the proconsul to 
determine, " utrum in carcerem recipienda sit persona, an 
militi tradenda, vel flde-jussoribus committenda, vel etiam 
sibi." (Digest, xlviii. tit. 3. De Custod. et Exhib. Reor. § 1.) 
Examples of the military custody will be found in Tacitus 
(Ann. iii. 22) ; Josephus (Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, § 7) ; Ignatius 
(Ep. ad Roman, v. p. 370) ; Martyr. Ignat. (ii. p. 540 ; v. p. 
544), &c. 

Note ( 55 ), p. 194. 

Examining free persons by scourging (Acts xxii. 24) or 
other torture, was against the spirit, and indeed against the 
letter, of the Roman law. " Non esse a tormentis incipiendum 
Divus Augustus constituit." (Digest. 48, tit. 18, § 1.) But 
arbitrary power often broke . this law, both at Rome and in 
the provinces. Suetonius says of Augustus " Et Q. Gallium, 
praetor em . . . raptum a tribunali, servilem in modum tor sit." 
( Vit. Octav. § 27.) Tacitus of Nero, " Ratus muliebre corpus 



Lect. VII.] NOTES. 407 

impar dolori, Epicharim dilacerari jubet." (Annal. xv. 57.) 
Tliis examination was in part by scourging. 

Note ( 56 ), p. 194. 
See Livy xxxiii. 36 (" Verberatos cmcibus affixit ") ; Val. 
Max. i. 7, § 4 ; Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 14, § 9 (iroXkofo <&\a)po<; 
fjudcTTL^L Trpocufacrdfievos dvearavpodaev — iroXfJuiqaev avhpa? 
lirirtKov rdyfiaro^ /jLcurTiyaxrcu 7rpb rod ^/maro^, teal aravpeo 
irpoG-rfKoycrai) ; &c. These last notices shew the practice on 
the part of the Koman governors of Palestine. 

Note (57), p. 194. 
The crucifixion of the Orientals has more commonly been 
impaling, than nailing to a cross. (See Ctesias, ap. Phot. 
Bibl. Cod. LXXIL p. 122 ; Casaubon. Exero. Antibaron. xvi. 
77.) The Eomans fastened the body to the cross either by 
cords or nails. (See Smith's Dictionary of Q-r. and Bom. Antiq. 
p. 370.) It is evident from Josephus that nailing was the 
common practice in Palestine. (See the last note, and com- 
pare Bell. Jud. vi. Iipoo~r}Xovv S' ol crrpaTioiTai §i opyrjv 
/col fjLi(ro$ rov? aXovras, aXXov aX\(p uyjqyLaTi 7rpb<z ')(\ev7]V t 
koX Bta to TfkrjOos %(*)pa re IveXelireTO rots aravpoLS, zeal o~rav- 
pol rot9 o-cD/Liacnv.) St. Augustine speaks as if nailing was the 
ordinary Eoman method. (Tractat. xxxvi. in Johann. Opera, 
vol. ix. p. 278 ; " Ubi dolores acerrimi exagitant cruciatus 
vocatur, a cruce nominatus : pendentes enim in liguo cruci- 
fixi, clavis ad lignum pedibus manibusque confixi, producta 
morte necabantur.") 

Note ( 58 ), p. 194. 
Plutarch, de Sera Numinis Vindicta ; ii. p. 554, A. Kal 
tcd o-cofiari twv fcdXa^ofjbevcov e/cao-Tos roov fca/covpyajv i/ccfrepei 
rbv avjov aravpov. Compare Artemidor. Oneirocrit. ii. 61. 
"Eot/ee teal 6 aravpbs Oavdrq), tcai 6 fieWcop avro) irpoarfkov- 
adao, irporepov avrbv /3aard^ec. 

Note (59), p. 194. 

The practice of attaching a small board or placard to 

criminals, with a notification of the nature of their offence, 

is mentioned by several writers, and there are many allusions 

to it in the poets. The technical name of this placard was 



408 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

in Latin "titulus." (Compare the titXos of John xix. 19.) 
See Sueton. Vit. Calig. § 34 ; " Komae publico epulo servum, 
ob detractam lectis argenteam laminam, carnifici confestim 
traclidit, ut manibus abscissis atque ante pectus e collo pen- 
dentibus, praecedente titulo qui causam poena? indicaret, per 
coetus epulantiuni circumduceretur." Vit. Domitian. § 10 ; 
" Patremfamilias, quod ' Threcem mirmilloni parem, mune- 
rario imparem' dixerat, detractum spectacuhs in arenam, 
canibus objecit, cum hoc titulo ; ' Impie locutus parmularius '." 
Dio Cass. liv. p. 523 ; Tov yovv irarpos tov ~Kcu7rlcovo<; tov 
fiev erepov twv SovXcov twv GVfJL<f)v<y6vT(ov r<x> viel iXevOepdocrav- 
tos otl a/Livvcu ol OvrjCTKOVTi r)0e\wo-e, tlvcl he erepov tov irpo- 
Sovra clvtov, Bed re t?}? ayopa? jjueaws fjuera 7 pa/jL/ubdrayv 
rr)v alrlav t?5? 6avaT(baea)<z avrov BwXovvtgdv Sia- 
yayovros, teal fierd ravra dvacrTavpcoaavTo^, ovk rjyavdfCTrjcre, 
Ovid. Fasti, vi. 190, 191 ; 

Vixit, ut occideret damnatus crimine regni : 
Hunc ill! titulum longa senecta dabat. 

Compare Trist. iii. 1, 47. We have no classical proof that 
the " titulus" was ordinarily affixed to the cross, unless we 
may view as such the statement of Hesychius — Xavh, dvpa, 
Xev/cco/uLCL, iv <p at ypacfral 'A0r)vy<nv iypdcf)ovTO 7rpo? tovs kcl- 
/covpyovs' rlOerat Be teal eirl aravpov. 

Note ( 60 ), p. 194. 
Seneca speaks of the " centurio supplicio propositus " as an 
ordinary thing (De Ira, c. 16, p. 34.) Petronius Arbiter says, 
" Miles cruces asservabat, ne quis ad sepulturam corpora detra- 
heret." (Satyr, c. 111.) 

Note (61), p. 194. 
So Alford (vol. i. p. 647) — " The garments of the executed 
were by law the perquisites of the soldiers on duty." Cf. 
Digest, xlviii. tit. 20, § 6. 

Note ( 62 ), p. 194. 

Ulpian says — " Corpora eorum qui capite damnantur, 

cognatis ipsorum neganda non sunt. Et se id observasse etiam 

Divus Augustus libro decimo de vita sua scribit. Hodie 

autem eorum, in quos animadvertitur, corpora non aliter sepe- 



Lect. VII.] NOTES. 409 

liuntur, quam si fuerit petitum et permissum. Et nonnun- 
quam non permittitur, maxime majestatis causa damnatorum." 
[Digest, xlviii. tit. 24. De Cadav. Punit. § 1.) And again 
— " Corpora animadversorum quibuslibet petentibus ad sepul- 
turam danda sunt." (Ibid. § 3.) So Diocletian and Maximian 
declare — " Obnoxios criminum, digno supplicio affectos 
sepulturae tradi non vetamns." The practice of the Jews to 
take bodies down from the cross and bury them on the day 
of their crucifixion, is witnessed to by Josephus — YlporjXOev 8' 
efa Toaovrov axrepeia^ coare fcal arduous ptyai, kclltoi, rocrav- 
tt]v 'lovSalcov irepl to? racfeas irpovoiav iroiovfjuevaiv, ware teal 
tovs i/c KaraSt/cr}? avaaravpov/jLevovs tt po 8vvto<z rjXiov 
KoOeKeiv /cal OaiTTeiv. {De Bell. Jud. iv. 5. § 2.) 

Note (63), p. 195. 

Among minute points of accordance may be especially 
noticed the following : — 1. The geographical accuracy. 
(a) Compare the divisions of Asia Minor mentioned in the 
Acts with those in Pliny. Phrygia, Galatia, Lycaonia, 
Cilicia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Asia, Mysia, Bithynia, are all 
recognised as existing provinces by the Eoman geographer, 
writing probably within a few years of St. Luke. {H. N. v. 
27 et seq.) (b) The division of European Greece into the 
two provinces of Macedonia and Achaia (Acts xix. 21, &c), 
accords exactly with the arrangement of Augustus noticed in 
Strabo (xvii. ad fin.) (c) The various tracts in or about 
Palestine belong exactly to the geography of the time and of 
no other. Judsea, Samaria, Galilee, Trachonitis, Ituraea, 
Abilene, Decapolis, are recognised as geographically distinct 
at this period by the Jewish and classical writers. (See Plin. 
H. N. v. 14, 18, 23 ; Strab. xvi. 2, §§ 10, 34 ; Joseph. Ant, 
Jud. xix. 5, § 1, &c.) (d) The routes mentioned are such as 
were in use at the time. The " ship of Alexandria," which, 
conveying St. Paul to Eome, lands him at Puteoli, follows 
the ordinary course, of the Alexandrian corn-ships, as men- 
tioned by Strabo (xvii. 1, § 7), Philo (In Mace. pp. 968, 969), 
and Seneca (Epist. 77), and touches at customary harbours. 
(See Sueton. Vit. Tit. § 25.) Paul's journey from Troas by 
Neapolis to Philippi presents an exact parallel to that of 



410 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

Ignatius, sixty years later {Martyr. Ignat. c. 5). His passage 
through Aniphipolis and Apollonia on his road from Philippi 
to Thessalonica, is in accordance with the Itinerary of 
Antonine, which places those towns on the route between 
the two cities (p. 22). (e) The mention of Philippi as the 
first city of Macedonia to one approaching from the east 
{irpcoTrj ttjs fjbeplSos ttjs MafceBovla? 7r6Xt?) is correct, since 
there was no other between it and JSTeapolis. The statement, 
that it was " a colony," is also true (Dio Cass. li. 4, p. 445, D ; 
Plin. H. N. iv. 11 ; Strab. vii. Fr. 41.) 2. The minute 
political knowledge, (a) We haye already seen the intimate 
knowledge exhibited of the state of Ephesus, with its pro- 
consul, town-clerk, Asiarchs, &c. A similar exactitude ap- 
pears in the designation of the chief magistrates of Thessalonica 
as TToXiTap^at, their proper and peculiar appellation. (Boeckh, 
Corp. Inscr. No. 1967.) (b) So too the Koman governors of 
Corinth and Cyprus are given their correct titles. (See notes 
104 and 108.) (c) Publius, the Eoman governor of Malta, has 
again his proper technical designation (o irpcoro<; tt}? viqaov), 
as appears from inscriptions commemorating the irpooro^ Me- 
Xiraicov, or "Melitensium primus." (See Alforcl, ii. p. 282.) 
(d) The delivery of the prisoners to the "captain of the 
(Praetorian) guard " at Pome, is in strict accordance with the 
practice of the time. (Trajan, ap. Plin. Pp. x. 65 ; " Yinctus 
mitti ad prsefectos prsetorii mei debet." Compare Philostrat. 
vit. Sophist, ii. 32.) 

Among additions to our classical knowledge, for which we 
are indebted to Scripture, it may suffice to mention, 1. the 
existence of an Italian cohort (aTrelpv 'IraXt/cr)) as early as 
the reign of Tiberius (Acts x. 1.) 2. The application of the 
term Xe^aarrj (Augustan) to another cohort, a little later 
(Acts xxviii. 1.) 3. The existence of an altar at Athens 
with the inscription ayvcaara) @ew, which is not to be con- 
founded with the well-known inscriptions 6eol<> dyvcocrro^. 
4. The use of the title arpaTTjyol (Praetors) by the Duumviri 
or cliief magistrates of Philippi (Acts xvi. 20.) We know 
from Cicero (De Leg. Agrar. 34), that the title was sometimes 
assumed in such cases, but we have no other proof that it was 
in use at Philippi. 



Lect. VII.] NOTES. 411 

Note ( 64 ), p. 195. 

Lardner, Credibility, &c, vol. i. p. 60. 

Note ( 65 ), p. 195. 

See Acts xiii. 5, 14 ; xiv. 1 ; xvi. 3, 13 ; xvii. 1, 10, 17 ; 
xviii. 4 ; xix. 8 ; &c. 

Note ( 66 ), p. 196. 

Uepl Se rrj? leporrokem ra irpocr^/covrd jllol \efcreov' avrrj, 
KaOdirep e<j>rjv, ifir) fiev eari nrarph, pLnrpoiroXi? Be ov puia? %g)- 
pa? 'lovBala?, dXXa koX tgov rrXsiGTCov, Bid ra? diroiKia? a? e£e- 
7T€fiyjr6V eirl fcaip&v, eh [Jiev ra? o/juopov? Aiyvirrov, <&oivifC7)v, 
%vpiav ttjv re oXXtjv real rrjv fcoiXrjv irpoo-ayopevo\xevY]v' eh Be 
rd? iroppco BicptciajJieva? Jla^vXiav, K.iXi/ciav, ra iroXXd rr}? 
'Acr/a? dyjpi J^iOvvia? fcal rmv rod Uovtov /hv^wv' rov avrbv 
rpbirov ical eh ^vpayrrrjv, %erraXiav, ^oicorlav, Ma/ceBovtav, 
AlrcoXiav, rrjv 'Arrifcrjv, "Apyo?, Y^bpivOov, ra irXelcrra teal 
dpicrra UeXoirovvtfo-ov, teal ov puovov al iqireipoi fjuecrral r&v 'Igu- 
Baitov aiTQiKi&v elcrlv, dXXa koi vrjcrcov al Bofci/no)rarai, Ei//3ota, 

Ku7T/30?, Kp77T?7, KCLI CTUQirW TO9 TCepaV J^lKJypdrOV. YLd<JCLl yap 

e^co fiepov? /3pa%eo? "Ba/SvXwvo? zeal roov aXXcov o-arpaireiwv al 
dperSaav eyovai rrjv ev /cv/cXtp yrjv, 'lovBalov? e%ovo~iv oIktjto- 
pa?' ware, av fjueraXd/3rj gov rr\? evp^evela? rj i/jby Trarph, ov fjuia 
nroXi? dXkd Kol fjbvpiai t&v aXXoyv evepyerovvrai icaO^ e/cacrrov 
tcXi/na rrj? olfcovfievTjs IBpvOeiGai, to JLvpeoiraiov, to ' Acnavbv, 
to Aifivfcbv, to ev rjireipois, to ev vtjgoi?, irdpaXov Te teal 
fjbeaoyeiov. (Philo Jud. Leg at. ad Oaium, pp. 1031, 1032.) 

Note ( 67 ), p. 196. 

'lovBalov? yap Sea iroXvavO pair lav %<*>pa fila ov %copec' 97? 
atria? evena ra? rrXe'iGra? teal evSaijuoveardra? rwv ev JLvpa>7rr} 
Kol 'Ao-iq, /card re vtjgov? koX rjireipov? eKve/xovrai, ixrjrpbiroXiv 
fjiev tt)v lepoiroXiv rjyov/Jievoi. (Ibid. In Flacc. p. 971, E.) 

Note ( 68 ), p. 196. 

Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 2 ; Be Bell. Jud. vii. 3, § 3 ; Contr. 
Apion. ii. 36 ; &c. 

Note ( 69 ), p. 196. 

Philo frequently mentions the synagogues under the name 
of irpocrevyaL {In Flacc. p. 972, A. B. E. ; Legat. in Caium, 



412 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

p. 1014, &c.) Their position by the sea-side, or by a river- 
side, is indicated, among other places, in the Decree of the 
Halicarnassians reported by Josephus (Ant. Jud. xiv. 10, § 23), 
where the Jews are alloAved irpocrewxas iroielo-Oai irpos rfj 
daXdacrr) Kara to ircurpiov e6os. See also Philo, Legat. in 
Caium, p. 982, D. ; Tertull. ad Nat. i. 13 ; De Jejun. c. 16 ; 
and Juv. Sat. iii. 13. 

Note (70), p. 196. 

Lightfoot, Hebraic, et Talmudic. JExercitat. not. in Act. 
Apost. vi. 8 ; Works, vol. ii. p. 664. 

Note (71), p. 196. 
See Legat. in Caium (p. 1014, C. D.), where Philo speaks 
of Transtiberine Rome as Kare^opukv^v /cal oIkov/jlcvvv 777309 
'lovSalcov, and then adds, 'Vcopbaloi 5' rjcrav ol ifke lovs dire - 
Xev0ep(D0evT€s. 

Note (72), p. 196. 

Annal. ii. 85 : " Actum et de sacris iEgyptiis Judaicisque 
pellendis : factum patrum consultum, ut quatuor raillia liber- 
tini generis ea superstitione infecta, queis idonea setas, in 
insulam Sardiniam veherentur." 

Note (73), p. 197. 

For the tumultuous spirit of the foreign Jews, see Sueton. 
Vit. Claud, p. 25 ; Dio Cassius, lx. 6 ; Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 8, 
§1; 9, §9; xx. 1, §1; &c. 

Note (74), p. 198. 

Annal. xv. 44. Tiberius reigned (as sole emperor) 23 years. 
(Suet. Vit. Tib. § 73.) His principatus, however, may date 
from three years earlier, when he was associated by Augustus. 
(Tacit. Ann. i. 3 ; Suet. Vit. Tib. § 21.) 

Note (75), p. 198. 

If our Lord was born in the year of Rome 747 (see above, 
Lecture VI. note 1), he would have been three years old at 
Herod's death; and 32 years old when he commenced his 
Ministry, in the fifteenth year from the associated principate 
of Tiberius. This is not incompatible with St. Luke's decla- 



Lect. VII.] NOTES. 413 

ration, that he was about 30 years of age (wael ircov 
TpiaKovra) when he began to preach; for that expression 
admits of some latitude. (See Alford's Greek Testament, vol. 
i. pp. 323 and 327.) 

Note (76), p. 198. 

Joseph. Ant. Jud. xiv. 7, § 3 ; xvii. 8, § 1 ; Nic. Damasc. 
Fr. 5. 

Note (77), p. 199. 
Joseph. Ant. Jud. xv, 6, § 7 ; Tacit. Hist. v. 9. ("Kegnum 
ab Antonio Herodi datum, victor Augustus auxit.") 

Note (78), p. 199. 

See Lardner's Credibility, vol. i. pp. 148-151 ; and compare 
Joseph. Be Bell. Jud. i. 27, § 1 ; 29, § 2 ; 33, § 8 ; Appian. 
Be Bell Civ. v. p. 1135. 

Note (79), p. 199. 

The cruelties, deceptions, and suspicions of Herod the Great, 
fill many chapters in Josephus. {Ant. Jud. xv. 1, 3, 6, 7, &c. ; 
xvi. 4, 8, 10 ; xvii. 3, 6, 7, &c.) His character is thus summed 
up by that writer : — 'Avrjp o)/^o? fiev eZ? irdvra^ o/Wo>9, kol 
opyfjs fi€V rjaacav, Kpelcracav Se rod Sifcalov, Tvyjf) Be el kol tl$ 
erepos icey^p^kvo^ ev/juevel. {Ant. Jud. xvii. 8, § 1.) His arrest 
of the chief men throughout his dominion, and design that on 
his own demise they should all be executed (ibid. 6, § 5 ; Bell. 
Jud. i. 33, § 6), shews a bloodier temper than even the mas- 
sacre of the Innocents. 

Note (80), p. 199. 

Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 34 ; vol. i. p. 222, E. T. 

Note (81), p. 199. 

Strauss grants the massacre to be " not inconsistent with 
the disposition of the aged tyrant to the extent that Schleier- 
macher supposed " {Leben Jesu, 1. s. c. p. 228, E. T.), but 
objects, that "neither Josephus, who is very minute in his 
account of Herod, nor the Kabbins, who were assiduous in 
blackening his memory, give the slightest hint of this decree." 
(1. s. c.) He omits to observe, that they could scarcely narrate 



414 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

the circumstance without some mention of its reason — the 
birth of the supposed Messiah — a subject on which their pre- 
judices necessarily kept them silent. 

Note (82), p. 199. 

Macrob. Saturnal. ii. 4 ; " Quum audisset Augustus, inter 
pueros quos in Syria Herodes rex Judceorum intra bimatum 
jussit interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait : Melius est, 
Herodis porcum (vv) esse quani filium (viov)" Strauss con- 
tends, that "the passage loses all credit by confounding the 
execution of AntijMter, who had grey hairs, with the murder 
of the infants, renowned among the Christians : " but Macro- 
bius says nothing of Antipater, and evidently does not refer to 
any of the known sons of Herod. He believes that among the 
children massacred was an infant son of the Jewish king. It is 
impossible to say whether he was right or wrong in this belief. 
It may have simply originated in the fact that a jealousy of a 
royal infant was known to have been the motive for the 
massacre. (See Olshausen, Biblisch. Comment, vol. i. p. 72, 
note; p. 67, E. T.) 

Note (83), p. 199. 

Josephus says — l^ataap Be cucovcras Bidkvei puev to crvve- 
Bptov, oXlycov Be rjfiepcov varepov ''ApyeXaov /Sacrikea fiev ov/c 
aTrocfyalverac, to v. Be rj/JLicrecos tt)? y^aapas, ryrrep 'UpcoBrj 
VTreTeXei, e6vap%r)v tea 6 laTaTao . . . ttjv Be eTepav ^filaeiav 
veifjias Btyrj, Bvalv c HpcoBov iralcnv €Tepoc<; irapeBlBov, ^iXiTnTcp 
/cat ' ' KvTVTra .... kal tovtw puev r)T6 Tiepaia Kal to YakCkalov 
vireTekovv . . ¥>aravaia Be crvv TpaycoviToBi Kal AvpaviTis avv 
Tivi puepet oXkov tov ZrjvoBcopov Xeyo/buevov <$?(\L7T7r(p . . tcl Be 
^ApyeXaw crvvTeXovvTa ^lBovfiald re Kal 'lovBala, to re %apia- 
piTLKov. (Antiq. Jud. xvii. 11, § 4.) Compare the brief notice 
of Tacitus ; " Gentem coercitam, liberi Herodis tripartito 
rexere." {Hist. v. 9.) 

Note (84), p. 199. 

Strauss says — " Luke determines the date of John's appear- 
ance by various synchronisms, placing it in the time of Pilate's 
government in Judaea ; in the sovereignty of Herod (Antipae) ; 
of Philip and of Lysanias over the other divisions of Palestine ; 



Lect. VII.] NOTES. 415 

in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas ; and moreover 
precisely in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, which, 
reckoning from the death of Augustus, corresponds with the 
year 28-29 of our era. With this last and closest demarcation 
of time all the foregoing less precise ones agree. Even that which 
makes Annas high-priest together with Caiaphas appears correct, 
if we consider the peculiar influence which that ex-high-priest 
retained." (Leben Jesu, § 44 ; pp. 300, 301, E. T.) 

, Note (85), p. 200. 

Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 11, § 1. 'Oiroaot he crvyyevels 
rjcrav tov /3acn\eo)<; } 'Ap^eXaco pAv G-vvrerd^Oai hi a /jllgos to 
7rpo? avTov varepovv. Compare 13, § 2. 

Note (86), p. 200. 
Joseph. De Bell. Jud. ii. 1, § 3. 

Note (87), p. 200. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 48 ; vol. i. p. 346, E. T. 

Note (88), p. 200. 

Josephus says — r ~Hpo)hrjg 6 TeTpdp%7]s yapuel rrjv 'Apira 
Ovyarepa, fcal avvr]v yjpbvov tfhn iroXvv. XreWofievos & eirl 
'Voojult)? tcardyeTai ev 'Upcohov dhe\(f>ov 6W09 ov% ofiofinrpiou' 
i/c yap tt}? XlfMovos tov dp%iepea)$ Ovyarpos 'Upcahns eyeyoveu' 
ipacrOeis he ^Upcohidhos tj}<; tovtov yvvaacos (Ovydriqp he rjp 
1 Api<TTo/3ov\ov, fcal outo? dhe\(j)o<; avT&v, ''Kyplirirov he dhe\(f)r) 
tov fJLeydXov) ToXpua Xoyoov dirreaOai nrepl ydpuwv. Kat he£a- 
pLevws, (Tvvdrj/cao ylvovrat pbeTOiKiaaaOai wpbs avrhv oirore dirb 
f P(w//,?7? TrapayevoiTo. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 5, § 1.) And again 
— ^Upcohtas he avrchv rj dheXcfrr} ytfpLerai ( Hpcohy 'Upoohov tov 
pbeydXov irathl, 09 yeyovev e/c M.aptdpLpL7)S tt}$ tov Xlficovos tov 
apxiepecos, teal civtoIs l^aXwpLW ylvei at, p,e& 979 tcls yovas 'Upco- 
hias, eirl crvy^vcret (ppovijaaaa tcov iraTpicov, 'Upcahrj yapuelTab 
tov dvhpbs Tft> 6/JL07raTpi(p dheX(pa>, htao-Tacra £,£)VTo<$' ttjv he Ta- 
XtXaicov TeTpapyiav elyev ovtos. (Ibid. § 4.) 

Note (89), p. 200. 

Ant. Jud. xviii. 5, § 2 ; Tiarl he twp 'lovhalcov eho/cet oXco- 
Xevai, tov 'HpeoSou o~Tparbv virb tov %eov, koi pbdXa hucaia>$ 



416 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

TivvvjJbevov Kara iroivr\v 'Icodvvov rod iiriKaXovfievov Ba- 
ttt lcttov. KTeLvec yap rovrov 'HpcoSr)?, dyaObv civ Spa, KOI 
tovs 'lovBalovs KekevovTCL, dperrjv eiraatcovvras fcal rfj rrpbs 
dXh^rfkovs Stfccuocrvvr) kclI 7T/90? tov ®ebv €vcr€{3eia xpco/bLevovs, 
ficvTTTLcriJbco crvvikvai. ovrco yap ical rrjv (3a7rTCcrLV airoDetcTrjV avrS 
tyaiveaOai, fAr) eirl rcvcov d/jLaprdScov irapairrjaeL XP W ~ 
fjuevcov,™ d\\ y i<f) ay vela, rod ad) pharos, are Sr) koi tt)? -v^l^t}? 
hiKaioavvr) 7rpoe/cK€fcadapfjLevr)$. Kal tcov aXXcov avo-Tpe^ofjue- 
vcov, (/cal yap rjpOr^aav eirl TrXeicrrov rfj d/cpodo-ec rcov Xoycov), 
Scleras 'UpcoSrjs to eirl rocrovSe iriOavbv avfov tols dvOpdnrots 
/jlt) eVl dTrocrrdaei tlvl (frepoi, (irdvTa yap icpfcecrav crv/jL{3ov\fj rfj 
eicelvov irpd^ovrei), iro\v Kpelrrov rp/elrat, nrplv to vecorepov ii~ 
avrov yeveaOau, TrpoXajBdiv dvacpeiv, rj fiera/SoXr/? yevo/j,ev7]s et? 
rd 7rpdy/jLara ipbireo-wv fjueravoeiv. K.al 6 fiev, viro^la rfj 
^UpcoSov, SecT/jLtos els tov IS/La^acpovvra irepb^Oels, 
to irpoeiprifjbevov cjipovpLov, ravry KTivvvrai. The genuine- 
ness of this passage is admitted even by Strauss. (Leben Jesu, 
§ 48 ; vol. i. pp. 344-347, E. T.) 

Note (90), p. 200. 

Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1. s. c. The chief points of apparent 
difference, are the motive of the imprisonment and the scene 
of the execution. Josephus makes fear of a popular insur- 
rection, the Evangelists offence at a personal rebuke, the 
motive. But here (as Strauss observes) there is no contra- 
diction, for " Antipas might well fear that John, by his strong 
censure of the marriage and the whole course of the tetrarch's 
life, might stir up the people into rebellion against him." 
Again, from the Gospels we naturally imagine the prison to 
be near Tiberias, where Herod Antipas ordinarily resided; 
but Josephus says that prison was at Machaerus in Persea, a 
day's journey from Tiberias. Here, however, an examination 
of the Gospels shews, that the place where Antipas made his 
feast and gave his promise is not mentioned. It only appears 
that it was near the prison. Now, as Herod was at this time 
engaged in a war with Aretas, the Arabian prince, between 



w Dr. Burton acutely remarks on 
this expression, that it is a covert 
allusion to the Christian doctrine of 
" a baptism for the remission of sins," 



and shews the acquaintance of Jose- 
phus with the tenets of the Christians. 
(Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 199.) 



Lect. VII.] NOTES. 417 

whose kingdom and his own lay the fortress of Machaerus, 
it is " a probable solution " of the difficulty, that he was 
residing with his court at Machserus at this period. (Strauss, 
§ 48, ad fin.) 

Note ( 91 ), p. 200. 

Philip is said to have retained his tetrarchy till the 20th 
year of Tiberius. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 5, § 6.) Herod Antipas 
lost his government in the first of Caligula. (Ibid. ch. 7.) 

Note (92), p. 200. 

Ant. Jud. xvii. 12 ; xviii. 1.; Be Bell. Jud. ii. 8, § 1. T?}? Be 
'Ap%eXdov yjApas eh eirapyjav ire piypa(f>e lavs, eV/rpoTro? rt9 
liririKr\<$ nrapd 'Vw/Jbaioi^ rdgecos K.co7rcovio<; irefJUTrerai, p>eyjpi rod 
Krelveiv Xaftcov irapa rod Kalcrapos e^ovcriav. The procura- 
tors for this period, mentioned by Josephus, are Coponius, M. 
Ambivius, Annius Eufus, Valerius Gratus, and Pontius Pilate. 
(Ant. Jud. xviii. 2, § 2.) 

Note (93), p. 201. 
Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, §§ 10, 11 ; 8, § 7 ; xix. 5, § 1 ; 
Philo, In Flacc. p. 968, D. E. 

Note (94), p. 201. 

Joseph. Ant. Jud. xix. 8, § 2 ; Tpirov Be eVo? avrS /3ao~t- 
Xevovrt t?}? oXws 'lovBala? ireirX^pwTai, Kal Traprjv el? ttoXiv 
K.accrdpeiav, rj irporepov ^rpdrayvo? 7rvpyo<; eKaXetTO' avve- 
reXet Be evravOa deayplas eh tt\v Kalcrapos Tip,r)v, vnrep rfjs 
i/celvov crcDTrjpias eoprrjv riva Tavrrjv eiriardfjievo^. Kat Trap 
avrr)V r}6 poiaTO twv Kara tt)V eirapyjuav ev reXei Kal irpo- 
/3e{3r)/c6T<i)V eh d%lav ttXtjOo^. Aevrepa Be rrjs Oecopia? 
7]jjbepa <ttoXt)V evBvo-dfjbevos ef dpyvpov ireiroir) p,e- 
vr\v iravav, o>? Oavfidaiov vtpfyv elvai, TraprjXOev eh to Oearpov 
dpyojJLevrjs 77/xepa?. "EiV0a rah Trpcora^ rcov rfXiaKwv d/crlv(ov 
eTrifioXah 6 dpyvpo? /caravyao-Oeh, Oavfiaala)^ o7reo~TiXfte, pap- 
fjualpcov ri cpoftepbv Kal roh eh avrov drevt^ovcro (frpLKcoBes. Eu- 
6v<$ he oi KoXaKe? rds ovBe e/ceiW 7rpo? dyaOov aXXos aXXoOev 
<f)(ovd<; dvefiocov, Oebv it poaayopevovres, " evpevvs re ei'779," 
eTriXeyovTes, " el Kal p>eyjp l vvv &S avOpwirov e^o^qOirjfjuev, dXXd 

2 E 



418 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

rovvrevOev fcpetrrovd ere Ovrjrrjs (fivaecos o/xoXoYoi)/zei>." Ovk 
eireirXrj^e tovtols 6 ftaaiXevs, ovhe rrjv KoXaKeiav dae- 
fiovcrav direr putyaro' dvatcv-tyas he ovv fier bXiyov, tov 
ffovftcova rrjs eavrov /cecjxiXr)*; virepKaOe^o/mevov elhev iirl o-ypi- 
viov twos' dyyeXov re tovtov evOvs evorjere /cafcebv elvai, tov 
fcal iTore toiv dyaOwv yevofievov, real hta/cdphiov ea^ev ohv- 
vrjv' dOpovv he avrco rrj<; KoiXias irpoakfyvaev aXyrjfia, fiera 
(Tcppo&pOTrjTOS dp^dfxevov. 'AvaOecopcov ovv irpbs tovs (frlXovs, 
" f O 6ebs vfiiv eya)," (jyrfoiv, " r)hi) Karao-re^eiv err LTaTTo fiat tov 
ftlov, Trapa^prjiMa 7779 elfiappLevrj^ Ta? dprc fiov KaTe^evcrixevas 
(jxovds i\ey)£ovo-T)<;' fcal 6 fcXrjdels dOdvaros v<f> vficov rjhrj 6avo)v 
dircuyoixai' he/creov he tt)V ireTrpco/jbevrjv fj ©eo? /3e/3ovX7)Tai' fcal 
yap fteftcoofca/jLev ovha/iy (fxivXax;, aXX' iirl ttjs /jLafcapi&fjLevrjs 
Xa/jL7rp6T7)To<;" TavTa Xeycov enriTdaei ttjs ohvvrjs Kareirovelro. 
Merd awovhrjs ovv els to (3acriXeiov ifcofALaOr), teal hirj^e Xoyos eh 
Trdvras, a>?e%0£ rod reOvdvai iravTairaai /xer oXtyov . . . %v ve- 
%«? he e'</)' rjfjuepas irevre r<p ttjs yao~Tpbs dXyr/fjuart 
hiepyaa 6 els tov {3lov Karearpe^frev. 

Note (95), p. 201. 

Ibid. xix. 9, § 2 ; "^irap^pv ovv ttjs 'lovhalas ical t?}<? dird- 
0-779 fiacriXeias direareCXe \KXavhios\ YLovainov <&dhov. 

Note ( 96 ), p. 201. 

Ibid. xx. 5, § 2 ; 7, § 1 ; and 8, § 4. Agrippa II. bore the 
title of king. (Be Bell. Jud. ii. 12, § 8.) 

Note ( 97 ), p. 202. 

Antiq. Jud. xix. 9, § 1 ; xx. 7, § 3. The evil reports which 
arose from this constant companionship are noticed by Jo- 
sephus in the latter of these passages. They are glanced at in 
the well-known passage of Juvenal (Sat. vi. 155-159). 

Adamas notissimus, et Berenices 
In digito factus pretiosior. Hunc dedit olim 
Barbams incestse, dedit hunc Agrippa sorori, 
Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata reges, 
Et vetus indulget senibus dementia porcis. 
Compare Tacit. Hist. ii. 2 and 81. 



Lbct.-VIL] NOTES. 419 

Note ( 98 ), p. 202. 

Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 8, § 8 ; 9, § 7. f O fiacrL\ev<; hreiri- 
(tt€vto V7rb KXavSlov JfLaloapos Tr]v eTrifieXeiav rov lepov. In 
one passage {Ant. Jud. xx. 1, § 3) Josephus says that these 
privileges continued to be exercised by the descendants of 
Herod, king of Chalcis, from his decease to the end of the war. 
But he here uses the term diroyovoi very loosely ; or he for- 
gets that Agrippa II. was the nephew and not the son of 
this monarch. (See the note of Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. 
p. 18, note B .) 

Note ( 99 ), p. 202. 

The procuratorship of Pilate lasted from the 12th year of 
Tiberius (a. d. 26) to the 22nd (a. d. 36). See Joseph. Ant. 
Jud. xviii. 3, § 2, and 4, § 2. Felix entered upon his office as 
sole procurator in the 12th year of Claudius (a. d. 53), and 
was succeeded by Porcius Festus early in the reign of Nero. 
(Ant. Jud. xx. 7, § 1 ; and 8, § 9.) 

Note ( 100 ), p. 202. 
The vacillation and timidity of Pilate appear in his attempt 
to establish the images of Tiberius in Jerusalem, followed 
almost immediately by their withdrawal. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 3, 
§ 1.) His violence is shewn in his conduct towards the Jews 
who opposed his application of the temple-money to the con- 
struction of an aqueduct at Jerusalem (ibid. § 2), as well as 
in his treatment of the Samaritans on the occasion which led 
to his removal. (Ibid. 4, § 1.) Agrippa the elder speaks of 
the iniquity of his government in the strongest terms (ap. 
Philon. Leg. ad Caium, p. 1034; Karahelcravra firj /cal tt}? 
aWws avrov inTLTpoTrrj^ €^e\ey)(Q)at, ras ScopoSoKias, t<x? vfipeis, 
ra<z ap7raya<;, ra? alfcias, Ta? iirqpeias, tov$ aKpirovs /cal 
eVaXX^Xov? (frovovs, ttjv avrjvvrov /cal dpyaXecordrnv cofAorwra 

Note ( 101 ), p. 202. 

Tacitus says of Felix — "Antonius Felix, per omnem scevi- 
tiam ac libidinem, jus regium servili ingenio exercuit." (Hist. 
v. 9.) And again, " At non pater ejus, cognomento Felix, 

2 e 2 



420 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

pari moderatione agebat, jampridem Judaese impositus, et 
cuncta malefacta sibi impune ratus, tanta potentia subnixo." 
(Ann. xii. 54.) 

Josephus gives a similar account of his government. (Antiq. 
Jud. xx. 8.) After he quitted office he was accused to the 
emperor, and only escaped a severe sentence by the influence 
which his brother Pallas possessed with Nero. 

Note ( 102 ), p. 202. 

See Ant. Jud. xx. 8, §§ 10, 11 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 14, § 1. In 
the latter passage Josephus says — At<z8e£ayu,eyo<? 8e irapa 

TOVTOV TTJV €7rLTp07rr)V ^tJcTTO?, TO ILaXlGTCL \vfiaLVOfjL€VOV T7]V 

yozpav iire^rjeb' twv yovv Xncrwv crvvika&e tol"? liKelo-rovs, kcli 
hiefyOeipev ovk oA^you?. 'A\V oi>x 6 /uuera ^rjarov 'AXyS^o? rbv 
avrbv rpoTrov e%r)<yr)aaTO rcov 7rpayfidrcov' ov/c eari 8' r\VTiva 
Ka/covpyia? IBeav irapeKarev. 

Note ( 103 ), p. 202. 
See above, notes 100 and 101. 

Note ( 104 ), p. 202. 

Here the accuracy of St. Luke is very remarkable. Achaia, 
though originally a senatorial province (Dio Cass. liii. 
p. 503, E.), had been taken into his own keeping by Tiberius 
(Tacit. Ann. i. 76), and had continued under legates during 
the whole of his reign. Claudius, however, in his fourth year 
restored the province to the senate (Suet. . Vit. Claud. § 35), 
from which time it was governed by proconsuls. St. Paul's 
visit to Corinth fell about two years after this change. 

Note (105), p. 202. 

Seneca says of Gallio — " Solebam tibi dicere, Gallionem 
fratrem meum (quern nemo nan parum amat, etiam qui amare 
plus non potest) aha vitia non nosse, hoc etiam odisse." And 
again — " Nemo mortalium uni tarn dulcis est, quam hie 
omnibus." (Qucest. Nat. iv. Praefat.) Statius uses the same 
epithet (Sylv. ii. 7, 11. 32, 33)— 

Hoc plus quam Senecam dedisse mundo, 
Aut duleem generasse Gallionem. 



Lect. VII.] NOTES. 421 

Note ( 106 ), p. 202. 

See Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 12, § 5; xviii. 1, § 1. Uapr/v 
Be real K.vprjvto$ et? rrjv 'lovBalav, irpoaOrjKnv t??? ^vpias yevo- 
fiev7)v,d7roTijUL7]or6fjb6vo^avTcov Ta? overlap zeal airoBwao- 
pevos ra 'Ap^eXdov xpV/ jLaTa ' O* ^ Kalirep to kclt a/)%a? ev 
Becvco (f)epovTe$ rrjv iirl rah airoypafyais aicpbacnv, viroKaTe- 
ftriaav, k. t. X. The difficulty with respect to the time of the 
taxing will be considered in note 119. 

Note ( 107 ), p. 203. 

There was a Sergius Paulus who bore the office of consul in 
the year A. D. 94. Another held the same office in A. d. 168. 
This latter is probably the Sergius Paulus mentioned by 
Galen. (Anat. i. 1, vol. ii. p. 218 ; De Prcenot. § 2 ; vol. xiv. 
p. 612.) 

Note ( 108 ), p. 203. 

Cyprus was originally an imperial province (Dio Cass. liii. 
p. 504, A.), and therefore governed by legates or propraetors 
(Strab. xiv. 6, § 6) ; but Augustus after a while gave it up to 
the Senate, from which time its governors were proconsuls. 
See Dio, liv. p. 523, B. rore Be ovv teal ttjv K.v7rpov /cat ryv 
Takariav rrjv Nap(Sovno~lav aireBcotce rep BrjpLcp, &>9 finBev rcov 
onfKcov avrov Beofjuevas' Kal oirra)? avdvircuroi teal e? tcl enelva 
e0vv Trepbireo-Qai fjp^avro.) The title of Proconsul appears on 
Cyprian coins, and has been found in a Cyprian Inscription of 
the reign of Claudius. (Boeckh, Corp. Inseript. No. 2632.) 

Note ( 109 ), p. 203. 

Joseph. Ant. Jud. xiv. 13, § 3 ; De Bell. Jud. i. 13, § 1 ; 
Dio Cass. xlix. p. 411, B. This Lysanias was the son of 
Ptolemy son of Mennseus, and seems to have been king of 
Chalcis and Itursea, inheriting the former from his father, and 
receiving the latter from Mark Antony. See the passages 
above cited. 

Note (110), p. 203. 

Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, was put to death by Antony, 
at the instigation of Cleopatra (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xv. 4, § 1), 



422 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

certainly before the year of Home 719, b. c. 35. (See Dio 
Cass. 1. s. c.) 

Note ( 111 ), p. 203. 
So Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 44 ; vol. i. p. 302, E. T. 

Note (112), p. 203. 
Ibid. p. 301. " We cannot indeed prove that, had a younger 
Lysanias existed, Josephus must have mentioned him," &c. 

Note (113), p. 203. 
Strauss assumes, without an atom of proof, that Abila (or 
Abilene) was included in the kingdom of Lysanias, the con- 
temporary of Antony. It is never mentioned as a part of his 
territories. Indeed, as Dr. Lee has remarked," it seems to be 
pointedly excluded from them. Agrippa the First received 
" the Abila of Lysanias " from Claudius, at the very time 
when he relinquished the kingdom of Chalcis, which formed 
the special territory of the old Lysanias. (Joseph. De Bell. 
Jud. ii. 12, § 8 ; Ant. Jud. xix. 5, § 1.) Thus it would appear 
that Josephus really intends a different Lysanias from the son 
of Ptolemy in these two passages. Even, however, if this 
were not the case, his silence would be no proof that a second 
Lysanias had not held a tetrarchy in these parts at the time 
of John's ministry. That Abila formed once a tetrarchy by 
itself, seems implied in the subjoined passage from Pliny — 
" Intercursant cinguntque has urbes tetrarchice, regionum 
instar singula?, et in regna contribuuntur, Trachonitis, Paneas, 
Abila, &c." (H. N. v. 18, ad fin.) 

Note (114), p. 204. 
See above, notes 4, 89, and 94. 

Note ( 115 ), p. 204. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 32 ; vol. i. p. 301, E. T. 

Note (116), p. 204. 
See the Zeitschrift fur geschichtliche Bechttvissenschaft, vol. vi., 
quoted by Olshausen in his Biblischer Commentar (vol. i. p. 125; 



x Sec his Inspiration of Holy 
Scripture, Lecture VIII. p. 403, 
note B . I am indebted to my friend, 



Mr. Mansel, for my knowledge of this 
excellent work. 



Lect. VII.] NOTES. 423 

p. 116, E. T.). On the general question, see Alford's Greek 
Testament, vol. i. p. 315. 

Note ( 117 ), p. 204. 
Ant. Jud. xviii. 1, § 1. See above, note 106. 

Note ( 118 ), p. 205. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 32 ; p. 204, E. T, 

Note (119), p. 205. 

The following explanations of Luke ii. 2 have been pro- 
posed :— (1.) It has been proposed to take irposTi) with airo- 
ypa<f>r), to regard Kvprjvwv as a genitive dependent on anro- 
ypacfrr), and r)ye/j,ovevovTo$ as equivalent to r/yefjuovo? or 1776- 
fjuovevcravTos. The passage is then translated — " This was the 
first assessment of Cyrenius, once governor of Syria." (See 
Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. pp. 173-175.) 

(2.) Only slightly different from this is the view of Beza y 
and others, which takes irpwrrj in the same way, but regards 
fjyefjLovevovros KvpTjvlov as a genitive absolute, and renders 
the verse — " This first assessment was made when Cyrenius 
was governor of Syria." Both these explanations suppose 
that Cyrenius made two assessments, one before he was actual 
President of Syria and one afterwards. The former regards 
Cyrenius as designated by his subsequent title ; the latter sup- 
poses that he may have been called " governor " when strictly 
speaking he was not so, but had a certain degree of authority. 
Two objections lie against both views. 1. The or do ver- 
borum does not allow us to take Trpcorrj with airoypa^. 2. 
No writer hints at Cyrenius having been twice employed 
to make a census in Palestine. 

(3.) A third explanation is, that 7rp(orrj is for irporepa, 
and that the genitive KvpTjvlov depends upon it, the con- 
struction used being analogous to that of St. John, ore 7rpca- 
to? fjiov rjv (i. 15.) The meaning is then — " This assessment 
was made before the time when Cyrenius was governor of 
Syria." (Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. pp. 165-173; Alford, 
Q-reek Testament, vol. i. p. 314.) 

y Sec Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 171, note d , 



424 NOTES. [Lect. VII. 

(4.) Finally, it is maintained that ijevero should be re- 
garded as emphatic — and that St. Luke means, as I have sug- 
gested in the text, that while the enrolment was begun a little 
before our Lord's birth, it was never fully executed until 
Cyrenius carried it through. Both this and the preceding 
explanation seem to be allowable — they are compatible with 
the Hellenistic idiom, and do no violence to history. As 
Lardner has shewn, there is abundant reason to believe that 
an enrolment was actually set on foot shortly before the death 
of Herod. (See the Credibility, vol. i. pp. 151-159.) 

Note ( 120 ), p. 205. 
See his Short View of the Harmony of the Evangelists, prop. 
xi. pp. 145-149. 

Note ( 121 ), p. 205. 
Connection of Sacred and Profane History, vol. ii. p. 505. 

Note ( 122 ), p. 205. 

Ant. Jud. xviii. 1, § 1. After speaking of Cyrenius as sent 
from Eome for the express purpose of effecting a census, 
Josephus adds — 'IouSa? Be TavXavlrws dvrjp, ifc 7roXeo? ovofia 
Td/jLaka, ^dBBovKOV Qapiaalov 7rpocr\afjL{3av6{Aevo<;, r/TrelyeTo 
i ir I airocrTacrei, rtfv re diroTiixnav ovBev aWo rj avTiicpvs 
BovXelav eiufyepeiv Xeyovres, ko\ ttj? ekevOepias eV dvriXrj^et, 
TrapafcaXovvres to eOvos. He then speaks of the success of 
Judas's efforts, and his formation of a sect, which Josephus 
puts on a par with those of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and 
the Essenes. Trj Be rerdpry twv <f>L\o<ro<f)ia)v 6 TaXtXalos 
'IovSa? rjyefjbcbv Kareo-Tw. (Ibid. § 6.) 

Note (123), p. 205. 

De Bell. Jud. ii. 17, § 8. The followers of Theudas " were 
scattered and brought to nought " (Acts v. 36), but those of 
Judas the Galilsean " were dispersed." (Ibid, verse 37.) It is 
in exact accordance with this distinction that the latter re- 
appear in the Jewish war, while of the former we hear nothing. 

See Dean Alford's note ad loc. 

Note (124), p. 206. 
Antiq. Jud. xx. 5, § 1. 



Lect. VIL] NOTES. 425 

Note (125), p. 206. 
lb. xvii. 10, § 4 ; 'Ez; tovtg) Be koi erepa {xvpia 6opvf3cov 
i^ofieva rr)v 'lovBaiav KarekdjjL^ave, iroXXwv iroXXaj^oae 
/car ol/c€LQ)v eXirlBas fcepBcov /ecu 'lovBalcov e%0pa<; eVl to 7roXe- 
fjuelv oopfjbrjfjLevcav. 

Note ( 126 ), p. 206. 
Be Bell. Jud. ii. 13, § 5 ; Mel^ovi Be ravrrj^ 7rXr)yf} 'lovBai- 
of 9 eKCLKwcrev KlyviTTios tyevBoTrpocfyrJTws. Tlapayevo/juevos yap 
et? tt]v yjjapav, avOpcoiros 70779, koi nrpotfyrjTov iti<ttiv eirideh 
iavTw, irepl Tpio-fivptovs fiev d0pol^ei t6)v rjirarrjixevwy. Uepca- 
yaycov Be avrov? etc T/79 eprifxla^ eU to 'l&Xaicov KaXovjxevov 6po$, 
iiceWev 0I09 re rjv eh 'lepoaoXv/jLa TrapeXOelv (Sia^eo-OaL, koi Kpa- 
rrjo-as T?}9 Te 'Vcofialicrj^ <fipovpa$ teal rod Brjfjbov rvpavvelv, %p<w~ 
jjuevo? to?9 Gweicnreaovcn Bopv<fi6pois. ^Odvet Be avrov ttjv op- 
jX7)v ^>rjXi%, viravriacras fiera tcov 'Vcofjiaitc&v ottXltcov, /cal iras 
6 Brj/nos crvvecfirjtyaTO ttjs aybvvt}^' coare avfi^oXr)^ yevofievT]^ tov 
fiev PdyvTTTiov (pvyelv fier oXtycov, Bia$Qapr\vai Be teal ^coyp?]- 
Orjvai irXeiaTovs t&v crvv avra>' to Be Xolttov wXfjOos o-tceBa- 
a6ev eirl ttjv eavrcov e/caaTov BtaXaOelv. Compare Antiq. Jud. 
xx. 8, § 6. 

Note (127), p. 206. 

In the parallel passage of the Antiquities (1. s. a), Josephus 
says, that Felix slew 400 and captured 200 of the Egyptian's 
followers. If he had really estimated their whole number 
at 30,000, he would scarcely have said, that " very many 
{irXelaroi) were killed or taken prisoners," when the loss 
in both ways was no more than 600 men. It has been 
sagaciously conjectured that the reading Tpio-fivplovs should 
be replaced by Terpa/eiaxiXtovs, having arisen from the ready 
confusion of ,\ with j8, or ; A with ,A. (Lardner, Credibility, 
vol. i. p. 227.) 

Note ( 128 ), p. 207. 

Ant. Jud. xx. 2. § 6. Compare Dio Cassius, Ix. pp. 671, 
672 ; Tacit. Ann. xii. 43 ; Sueton. Vit. Claud. § 18. Eusebius 
mentions a famine in Greece during the same reign. 
{Chronica, pars ii. p. 373, ed. Mai.) Josephus calls the 



426 NOTES. [Lect. VII, 

famine in Judaea, to which he refers, tqv fieyav Xtfxov. (Ant. 
Jud. xx. 5. § 2.) 

Note (129), p. 208. 
Alford, Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 53. 

Note ( 130 ), p. 208. 

See an article " on the Bible and Josephus," in the Journal 

of Sacred Literature for October 1850. 

Note ( 131 ), p. 209, 

St. Ambrose, Comment, in Psalm, cxviii. § 37. (Opera, 
vol. i. p. 1206.) 

Note ( 132 ), p. 209. 
Ibid. Explic. Luc. x. § 171. (Opera, vol. i. p. 1542.) 

Note ( 133 ), p. 209. 
Irenseus, Advers. Hoeres. iii. 1 ; ( Opera, vol. ii. p. 6.) 



Lect.VIII.] NOTES. 427 



LECTURE VIIL 



Note ( 1 ), p. 211. 

Of all our writers on the Evidences, Lardner is the only- 
one who appears to be at all duly impressed with a feeling 
of the value of Christian witnesses. He devotes nearly two 
volumes to the accumulation of their testimonies. (See his 
Credibility, vols. i. ii. and iii.) Paley does not make any use 
of Christian writers to prove the facts of Christianity ; he only 
cites them as witnesses to the early existence and repute of 
our Historical Scriptures. Butler in a general way refers to 
the evidence of the " first converts " {Analogy, part ii. ch. 7, 
p. 291) ; but omits to enlarge on the point. And this is the 
general spirit of our Apologists. 

Note (2), p. 211. 

So Celsus (ap. Origen. Contr. Cels. iii. 44.) Strauss en- 
deavours to diminish the authority of the Apostles and 
first preachers of Christianity, by contrasting the darkness 
of Galilee and Judaea with the enlightenment of " highly 
civilized Greece and Kome." (Leben Jesu, § 13, sub fin. ; 
vol. i. p. 64, E. T.) 

Note ( 3 ), p. 213. 

Stromata, ii. pp. 464, 489, 490 ; v. p. 677 ; vi. p. 770. 
Clement believes the writer to be the companion of St. 
Paul. (See Strom, ii. p. 489 ; Ov fxoi hel ifKeiowov Xoywv, 
irapaOefjuevcp /judprvv rov ^KitoottoXikov J$apvdj3av' 6 8e 
tcov efihofjbrjKovTa tjv, teal crvvepybs rod YlavXov. He then 
quotes from the extant Epistle.) 

Note (4), p. 213. 

Contra Celsum, i. § 63 ; p. 378, 13. ; De Princip. iii. 2. § 4 ; 
p. 140, E. 



428 NOTES. [Lect. VIII. 

Note (5), p. 213. 

Professor Norton assigns the Epistle of Barnabas to " the 

v middle of the second century" (Genuineness of the Gospels, 

vol. i. p. 347) ; but on very insufficient evidence. Lardner 

gives A. d. 71 or 72 as the probable date of its composition 

(Credibility, vol. i. p. 285.) 

M. Bunsen, while rejecting the view that it was written by 
the companion of St. Paul, puts its composition " about 15 
years before that of the Gospel of St. John," or some time 
before the close of the first century. (Hippolytus and his Age, 
vol. i. p. 54.) 

The genuineness of the Epistle has been well defended by 
Dr. Lee, who thoroughly exposes the common fallacy, that, if 
the work of the Apostle, it must have formed a portion of 
Canonical Scripture. (See his Lectures on the Inspiration of 
Holy Scripture, Appendix E. pp. 472-477.) 

Note ( 6 ), p. 213. 

See the subjoined passages — Jlepas ye rot BiBdertcwv tov 
'IcrparjX, /cal rotavra re para teal crvp<eia ttoiwv, eKijpv^e, 
teal virepnydirno-ev avTov. r/ Ore BeTovs IBlovs'Attoo-toXovs, 
tou? /jbeXkovra<; KvpvaaeLV to evayyeXcov avrov, i^eXe^aTo,... 
Tore eefoavepaxrev eavrbv vlov %eov elvat. (§5; p. 15.) Ot Be 
pavTiCpvTes waives, evayyeXc^o/Juevoi tj/jllv ttjv a^eaiv t&v dfjuap- 
ticov, teal tov dyvccrfibv ttjs teapBlas, oh eBco/ce rov HLvayyeXiov 
ttjv e^ovcrlav, overt BetcaBvo, eh fiaprvpiov twv ej)vXcov, on Be- 
tcaBvo al (pvkal rod *\aparj\. (§ 8 ; p. 25.) Avtos rjOeXrjcrev 
ovrco iraOelv . . . Xeyet yap 6 TrpoeprjTevcov enr avTto . . . IBov, r e- 
Oettcd /jlov rov vcotov el$ fidcmyas, ras ertaybvas els 
p airier /juara. (§5; p. 16.) "OtyovTat avrbp rore rfj rj^epa 
rov iroBrjpr) e^ovra tov teo/ctctvov nrepl ttjv crdpfca, ical 
epoveriv Ov% 0VT ^ eaTiv ov iroTe r)pteh eerTavpeoerap,ev ef- 
ovOevqaavTes, teal fcaTatcevTrjcravTes, ical ifiirat^avTes. (§ 7; 
*p. 24.) f O vibs tov %eoi> ewaOev, Xva t) irXnyr) avTov %a)07rotrjo-r) 
rj/jbds . . . dXXd tccu ctt avpu>Q els eiroT t^eTO o^et teal X°^V m 
(§ 7 ; pp. 20, 21.) Kcu irdXtv M.coerr)<; iroiel tvttov tov 'Irjcrov' 
otl Bet avTov iraQelv teal avTov fooTrotrjerat, ov Bb^eoatv diro- 
XcoXetcevat. (§ 12; p. 39.) Tt ovv Xeyet irdXtv 6 7rpo(f>riTw<i ; 
irepteer^e fjte ervvaycoyrj rrovvpevofjuevcov' i/cvtcXeocrdv fie eocnrep fie- 



Lkct. VIII. ] NOTES. 429 

Xiaaab /cnptov' /cal 67rl tov Ifjuartcr puov fiov e/3a\ov /c\r}- 
pov. 'Ey aapKi ovv avTov fjueWovros (f)avepova6ac /cal nrdayeiv, 
TTpoe^avepovro to irdOos. (§ 6 ; p. 18.) Ato ical ayop,ev rrjv 
rjfjiepav ttjv oySonv et? evcjypoavvnv, iv fj /cal 6 'I^crou? aviarr) 
iic ve/cpcov' /cal (fravepcoOels dveftn et? tov? ovpavov?. 
(§15; p. 48.) 

Note ( 7 ), p. 213. 
Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 289 et seq. ; Burton, Eceles. 
History, vol. i. pp. 342, 343; Norton, Genuineness, &c. vol. i. 
pp. 336-338 ; Bunsen, Hippolytus, vol. i. pp. 44-47 ; Jacob- 
son, Prcefat. ad S. Clem. Up. p. x-xvii., prefixed to his 
Patres Apostolici. 

Note ( 8 ), p. 214. 

The following are the passages to which reference is 
made in the text: 'Ef avrov (sc. tov 'Ia/co)/3) 6 Kvpios 'Incrovs 
to Kara crdp/ca. (§ 32; p. 114.) To cncrjiTTpov tt}$ pueya- 
\ayo~vvws tov %eov, 6 Kvpto? r/pLoov X/)tcn-Q? 'Iwo-ovs, ov/c 
rj\0ev iv /co/Jbirq) akatpveias, ovBe vTrepwcpavlas, Kaiirep Bvvd- 
/jL€vo<z, aXKa Taireivofypov&v. (§16; pp. 60, 62.) Ta ira6rj- 
fjuaTa avrov rjv Trpo otyOaXpuoyv vfitbv. (§ 2 ; p. 12.) M.d\io~Ta 
puepLvn^ivoi tcov Xoycov tov Kvplov 'Irjcrov, o£>? eXaXwcre BiSd- 
cr/ccov iiriei/ceiav /cal pua/cpodv filav. Ovtg)? yap elirev' 
'EXeetTe iva iXenBrjTe, d(£>i€T€ Iva dcfreOf} vpZv' ft>? iroieiTe, ovtco 
irotnOrjo-eTai v/jllV ft>? 67Sot€, ovt&s hodrjaeTat vpuiv' ft)? KplveTe, 
ourft)? KpiOrjaeTau vfUV co? %pno~T€veo~6e, ovtcos ^prjcrTevOrjaeTai 

VfUV' ft) peTpW /Jb€Tp6LT€, iv aVT(p fl€Tpr}07]O-€Tai VfUV. (§ 13 J 

p. 52.) 'ATevicrcD/jLev et? to alp, a tov H-piarTov, ical tScopuev 
co? eariv Tifjuiov T(p ®ea> alpua avrov, Sea ttjv r)p,€T€pav aco- 
Twptav i/c%vdev. (§7; p. 34.) Ata ttjv dydirnv rjv eayev 
7rpo? r)pua^ to alp, a avrov eSco/cev virep i)pL<ov 'I^croi)? Xpt- 
o"to? o Kvpto? rjpbwv, iv OeXrjpiaTt %eov, /cal ttjv crdp/ca virep tt}? 
crapicb<$ r)pbcov, /cal ttjv yfrv)(rjv virep tcov tyvyfiv rj/iwv. (§ 49 ; 
p. 178.) Trjv pueKkovaav dvaaraaiv ecreaOai, r)<;Tr)v dirap%r)v 
iiroir}craTO tov Hivpcov r)pb6)v 'Ino-ovv XpccrTov, i/c ve/cpcov dva- 
o-Trjo-a<$. (§ 24 ; p. 98.) ^^eirepLcpOv o X.pLo~Tbs ovv diro tov 
®eov, /cal ol ' ' Kttoo-toXol diro tov XpicrTov. (§ 42 ; p. 148.) 
Mera TrXnpotyopias YivevpbaTo? ' Ay tov itjr}\0ov [ol 'Atto- 
cttoXol] evayyeXi^opbevoi ttjv ftaaikeiav tov Seov pueXkeiv ep^e- 



430 NOTES. TLect. VIIL 

crOat. KffT^ ^typa? ovv real iroXeis JcrjpvacrovTes, readi- 
er ravov ra? airapyas avrcov, Bota/jbdaavTes tg5 Uvevfiart,, et? 
iTTicrfcoTrovs real Siatcovovs (ibid. pp. 148, 150.) Aid £?}- 
Xov kcu (£>06vov o l /jbiyocTTO i teal hucaLorarou crrvXoi ihi- 
co^0rjo-av teal eW Oavdrov rjXOov. Adj3cojjb6V irpo 6cf)6aX/icov tj/jlcov 
tovs dyaOovs 'AttocttoXovs. f O Uerpos Sid tffkov dSi/cov ov% 
eva ovhe Bvo, dXXd irXeiova? vnrrjvey tcev ttovovs, teal ovtco 
liapTvprjcras iiropevOn eh to 6(peiX6/j,evov toitov r?5? Bo^rjs. Aid 
tfjXov real 6 TlavXos v7to/jlovt]^ ftpafteiov virea^ev, €7rrdfci<i 
Sea/Ma (fropecras, cpvya8€vd€l<;,Xi6acr0€l<;,fcr}pvt;yev6- 
fjuevos ev re rfj dvaToXy teal iv rfj Svcrei, to yevvalov 
tt}? 7r/o-T6ft)? avTov /cXeo? eXafiev, hiicaiocrvvnv 8i8di;a<; oXov 

TOV KOCT [JbOV KoX €7rl TO T6pfia T^? SvcreCOS iX0(OV, KCU fJbapTV- 

pr\aa% iirl to3v rjyovfjuevcov, k. r. X. (§ 5 ; pp. 24-28.) 

Note ( 9 ), p. 214. 

Up. ad Cor. § 47 ; p. 168. 'AvaXdfiere ty)v iirio~ToXr)v rov 
ficLfcaplov UavXov tov ' AitocttoXov. Tt rrpwTov v/mv iv dpyrf rod 
evayyeXlov eypatyev ; eV dXwOelas irvevfiaTiica}^ eTreareiXev vjjliv 
irepl avTov tg teal K.r)<pd re teal 'AttoXXco, hid to koX Tore rrpocr- 
tcXicreis vfjud? ireirotrjcrOaL. Compare 1 Cor. i. 10-12. 

Note ( 10 ), p. 214. 

See Burton's Ecclesiastical History of the First Three 
Centuries, vol. i. pp. 197 and 357. 

Note (11), p. 214. 

Ibid. vol. ii. p. 23. Compare Pearson's Disputatio de 
Anno quo S. Ignatius a Trajano Antiochice ad Bestias erat 
condemnatus (printed in Dr. Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, 
vol. ii. pp. 524-529.) Pearson places the Martyrdom in 
A. d. 116 ; M. Bunsen in A. d. 115. {Hippolytus and his 
Age, vol. i. p. 89.) 

Note (12), p. 215. 

Two of these Epistles are addressed to St. John, and the 
third to the Virgin Mary. They exist in several MSS., and 
were printed at Paris as early as a. d. 1495. Burton says of 
them, " Two Epistles to St. John and one to the Virgin Mary, 
which only exist in Latin, do not deserve even to be men- 



Lect. VIII.] NOTES. 431 

tioned." {Eceles. Hist. vol. ii. n. 29, note.) So far as I know, 
they are not now defended by any one. 

Note ( 13 ), p. 215. 

Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. pp. 314, 315 ; Burton, Eceles. 
Hist. vol. ii. pp. 29, 30 ; Schrockh, Christl, Kir eh. Geschiehte, 
vol. ii. p. 341 et seq. ; Neander, Geschiehte der Christl. Re- 
ligion, vol. ii. p. 1140 ; Kiste in Illgen's Zeitschrift fiir histo- 
risehe Theologie, II. ii. pp. 47-90 ; Jacobson, Patres Apostolici, 
vol. ii. pp. 262-470 ; Hefele, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, 
3rd edition, Prolegomena, p. Iviii. 

Note ( 14 ), p. 215. 

Euseb. Hist. Eceles. iii. 36 ; Hieronym. Be Viris Illustr. 
c. xvi. {Op. vol. ii. p. 841, ed. Vallars.) The brief account 
given in the text of a very complicated matter, requires a few 
words of elucidation, and perhaps, to some extent, of correc- 
tion. The twelve Epistles in their longer form exist both in 
Greek, and in an ancient Latin version. Eleven Epistles 
out of the twelve are found in a second Latin version, like- 
wise ancient ; which presents numerous important variations 
from the other, and is in general considerably shorter. Of 
these eleven Epistles, the first seven, and a fragment of 
the eighth, were found in Greek in the famous Medicean 
manuscript, which evidently gave the original text of the 
shorter Latin translation. The seven (complete) Epistles 
of the Medicean MS. are nearly, but not quite, identical 
with the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome. 
They consist, that is, of six out of the seven (viz. the Epistles 
to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, 
Sinymseans, and Poly carp), together with a letter to a 
Christian woman, Maria Cassobolita ; and there is also in the 
MS. a fragment of the Epistle to the Tarsians. The Epistle 
to the Komans, which is placed at the end of the shorter 
Latin recension, is not in the Medicean MS. ; but this is 
explained by the fact that that MS. is a fragment. As it 
observes the exact order of the shorter Latin version, and 
seems to be the text — only somewhat corrupt — from which 
that version was made, we may conclude, that it contained 



432 ■ NOTES. [Lect. VIII. 

originally the same eleven letters. Thus we cannot base any 
argument on the identity of the Eusebian and Medicean 
Epistles. It is not an exact identity ; and the approach to 
identity is perhaps an accident. 

Note ( 15 ), p. 215. 

See Dr. Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum, Introduction, pp. 
xxxiv-lxxxvii. ; Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i. 
pp. 98-103. 

Note ( 16 ), p. 216. 

See Dr. Jacobson's Preface to the third edition of his 
Patres Apostolici, p. liv. ; Hefele's Prolegomena, 1. s. c. ; Pro- 
fessor Hussey's University Sermons, Preface, pp. xiii-xxxix. ; 
Uhlhorn in Niedner's Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie, 
xv. p. 247 et seq. ; and Canon Wordsworth in the English 
Revieiv, No. viii. p. 309 et seq. The shorter Greek recen- 
sion is also regarded as genuine by the present Eegius 
Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford. 

Note (17), p. 216. 
The subjoined, are the most important of the Ignatian 
testimonies to the facts of Christianity : 'Xvvepyeo'Oe iv p>ia 
7rl(TT6L, KaX iv *\narov X/ho-tco, roy Kara a a pica i/c yevovs 
A a {318, to) via) avOpcoTrou koX vlco @eov. (Ep. ad Eph. xx. 
p. 302.) f O yap ©eo? fjficov 'Irjcrovs 6 XpiaTos €Kvo(f)0 pr)6n 
vrrb ISA a p las, kot oIkovo\xiov ©eoO, £k a7repfiaro<; fiev Aa/318, 
HvevfAaros Se'Ayiov o? iyevvrjOr), Kal iftarrr LO~6rj, k.t.X. 
(Ibid, xviii. pp. 296-298.) "E\a#ez> rbv dp^ovra rod alcbvos 
rovrov rj irapOev La Ma/3 i a 9, Kal 6 roKerbs avrov, koX 6 6dva- 
T09 rov Kvpiov, rpia /xvcrrr/pia Kpavyyjq. (Ibid. xix. p. 298.) 
IIco? ovv icfyavepcoOv T0Z9 alcbcriv ', 'Ao-Tr/p iv ovpavw eXafi- 
"tyev vrrep irdvras - tou? darepas, koX to <$>&<$ avrov 
dveKXaXrjrov rjv, /cal ^evio-fibv irapelyev rj Kaivorns avrov. 

(Ibid. xix. p. 300.) Tbv Kvpcov rj/uucov yeyevn^evov 

aXn66d<; etc rrapOevov, (Beftairr oa /xevov virb 'Icodvvov, 
Xva rrXvptoOr] nraaa Bi/catoavvr) vir avrov, dXnOws 
eirl Tlovr tov UoXdrov KaX 'H pa>8ov rer pap^ov 
KaOwXoy/juevov virep rjfiwv iv aapKi. (Ep. ad Smyrn. 
i. p. 416.) Kal to 1)9 Trpocpijra^ ayairoj/Jbev, Bid rb KaX 
avrov<; et'9 to evayyeXtov KarnyyeXKevai, Kal eh avrov 



Lect. VIII.] NOTES. 433 



eXrrl^eiv, Kal avrov dvafjbevetv iv w Kal irccrrevaavre^ iccoOrjcrav 
iv evorrjTL 'Itjctov XpLdrov, ovres dtjiayairrjrol real d^toOavfiao-roi 
ayiot, otto 'Irjcrov l^piarov fjuefiaprvprj pivot, k. r. X. 
{Ep. ad Philadelph. v. pp. 394-396.) Aia rovro pvpov 
eXa/3ev iirl rrjs KecfyaXi}^ avrov 6 Kvpios, Iva irverj rfj 
€K/cX7}(TLa afyOapalav. [{Ep. ad Ephes. xvii. p. 296.) 'AXr]6m 
eiraOev co? /cat dXrfOo)^ aveo-rrjaev e avrov. {Ep. ad Smyrn. 
ii. p. 418.) M-7)K6Ti o-aftftarl^ovres, dXXa Kara K.vptaKr)v ^corjv 
£covT€$, iv fi Kal rj ^coy rj/^cov dvereiXev $i avrov. {Ep. 
ad Magnes. ix. p. 324.) Ol irpoiprjrai &>9 hihdaKaXov avrov 
irpocrehoKovv' Kal Sid rovro bv Bucauo? dveyuevov, irapobv tfyet- 
pev avrov? i/c veicpwv. (Ibid. 1. s. c.) 'E^go yap Kal /nerd 
rrjv dvdcrracnv iv aapKi avrov olSa Kal mcrrevoi ovra. Kal ore 
Trpbs rov<; nrepl Tierpov rjXdev, ecferj avrois, Adhere, 
, ^rr]Xa(^r}a-are /jue, Kal there, on ovk elpl Sat/juovcov dcrco/jbarov. 
Kal evOvs avrov rj^avro, Kal inrtarevo-av. {Ep. ad jSmyrn. 
iii.p.420.) M.erd he rrjv dvdaraatv crvvetyayev avrols Kal 
avveiriev a>? crapKiKos. (Ibid. 1. s. c.) 'Tirordyrjre tg5 eVt- 
aK07T(p Kal dXXrjXois, &)? 'I-rycroO? Xpt(7T0? rm rrarpl Kara crdpKa, 
Kal oVKiroo-roXoL tg5 ^K.pcara> Kal rat Uar pi Kal ra> JJvev- 
fjuart. {Ep. ad Magnes. xiii. p. 328.) ' AvayKalov ovv icrrcv 
. . . virordaaeaOai rQ> irpe^vrepiw, a>9 rocs drroaroXot^. 
{Ep. ad Trail, ii. p. 334.) Ol% a>? IleTo? Kal IlaOAo? 
hiardcro-oyLai v/ublv iKelvot diroaroXoi, iya> karaKpiro^. 
{Ep. ad Bom. iv. p. 368.) 

Note (18), p. 216. 

See Dr. Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum, pp. 227-231 ; and 
M. Bunsen's Hippolytus, vol. i. pp. 92-98. 

Note (19), p. 217. 

See Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, vol. ii. pp. 484-512. This 
work is admitted to be genuine, even by M. Bunsen. ( Hip- 
polytus, vol. i. pp, 223-227.) 

Note ( 20 ), p. 217. 

See especially the following passages : AiaKovoi . . . iropev- 
ofjuevoi Kara rrjv dXrjOetav rod Kvptov, 6? iyevero hiaKovos 
irdvrwv. (§5; p. 494.) Mvrjfjypvevovres Be wv elrrev 6 Kvpios 

2f 



434 NOTES. [Lbot. VIII. 

BcBda fccov, Mr) tcplvere, uva fjur) KptdrJTe' d^Ure, teal 
dcfeeOrjorerai, vfiiv eXeetTe, Xva eXerjOrJTe' ev <p /uuerpa) fjieTpelre, 
avTL/JL€Tpr)6i]creTai, vfuv* Kal otl fjuatcdptoi oi ittw^oI, Kal ol Bia)- 
ko/jL€vol eveKev BtKaioavvr}^, otl avTcov ecrrlv r) (Bao-iXeia rod 
Seov. (§2; pp. 488-490.) XpfccrT09 'Irjcrovs, 09 dvtfveyKev 
r)/jb(bv Ta? dfiapria^ tw I8i<p crco/mari, eirl to %vXov' 09 
dfjuaprlav ovk eiroirjaev, ovBe evpedrj S0X09 ev tg> GTOfiaTL avrov' 
dXXa Be i)fjbd<;, Xva %V°~ co f jiev &> avTcp, irdvra vTrepueive. (§8; 
p. 502.) ,v O? av /ult) o/jioXoyfj to f.iapTvpcov tov GTavpov, i/c 
tov BiaftoXov earl. (§ 7 ; p. 500.) Tov YJjpiov rj/mcov 'Irjaovv 
HLpMTToVi 09 virepbeivev vir.ep twv d/iapTicov rjpbcov eo>9 OavaTOV 
KaTavTrjaai' ov r/yeipev 6 ©609, Xvaas Ta$ G)82vas tov aBov. 
(§ 1 ; p. 486.) HisTevaavTes el? tov eyelpavTa tov Kvpiov 
rjjbLWV 'Irjcrovv ^LpiaTov etc ve/epcov, zeal Bovtcl clvtg) Bo^av teal 
Qpovov etc Begiwv ai/Tov. (§2; p. 486.) T £l (sc. tg> Kup/«) 
edv evapeo-Tr)o~G)/jLev ev to> vvv alcovt, diroXri^opbeOa teal tov fiiX- 
XovTa, tca8oo<; hire a %e to i)\xlv eyelpai r/fjua? etc vetepw. 
(§ 5 ; p. 496.) UapatcaXw ovv irdvTas vfjuds , . . datcelv nrdo-av 
v7rofiovr]v,r)v teal I'S e t e teaT ocpOaX/juovs, ov fiovov ev rot9 
fiatcaplois 'I<yvaTi(p, teal TAiro-lfJuw, teal 'Yovcfxp, dXXa teal ev aWois 
rot9 e£ vfJLoov, teal ev avTfp TiavXw teal to £9 Xonrots diro- 
cttoXois' TreTTio-fievovs oti ovtol irdvTes ovk eU tcevbv eBpafiov, 
. . . teal oti et9 tov bfyeiXofievov avTol? tottov elcrl irapd tco 
~Kvpi(p, (p teal crvveiraOov. (§9; pp. 502-504.) To ixatca- 
piov teal evBo^av TlavXov 09 yevop,evo<; ev vjullv tcaTa irpo- 
o-(oirov tmv TOTe dv0po)7T(ov, eBlBa^ev dtcpifim teal /3e/3a/a)9 
tov irepldXrjOeiasXoyov 69 teal dirwv v pulv eypayjrev eiriG- 
roXa9, k. t. X. (§3; p. 490.) 

Note ( 21 ), p. 217. 

See the Epistle of Irenseus to Florinus, preserved in Euse- 
bius's Ecclesiastical History (v. 20 ; vol. i. pp. 359-360.) ; — At 
e/c rralBcov /jiaOrjcreLs crvvavtjovcrac ttj yfrv^fj evovvTai avTrj, coaTe /xe 
BvvaaOai elirelv teal tov tottov ev co tca0e£6/uLevo$ BteXeyeTo 6 
fAatcdpio? YloXvtcapTTOs, teal t<x9 irpooBovs avTov teal tcl? elo~68ov<;, 
teal tov yapatcTr)pa tov {3iov, teal ttjv tov G(jc>fJLaTo<; IBeav, teal ra9 
8iaXei*eLs ds eiroielTo 77-009 to 7rXi}6o<;, teal ttjv tcaTa 'Icodvvov 
avvavaaTpo(f>r]V(i)<; dirrjyyeXXe, Kal ttjv fJueTa tcovXocttmv 
tcov eo) patcoTcov tov Kvptgv Kal C09 direixvr]\xoveve tov^Xo- 



Lect. VIII. J NOTES. 435 

701*9 avroyv, teal irepl rod Kvplov rlva rjv a nrap ifcelvwv dfCTj/coeo, 
zeal ire pi tgsv Bvvd/jb€(ov avrov, co? irapdroiv clvtoittwv rrj? 
%(of)<; rod \6yov TrapetXrjcjiGx; 6 YioXvicapTros a7rrj<yyeXke ttclvtcl 
o-vfi(j>o)va tgu? ypacjzais. 

Note (22), p. 217. 
Euseb. Hist. Eecles. iii. 3 ; vol. i. p. 147 ; Hieronyin. Be 
Viris Illustr. x. p. 831. ed. Vallars. Compare Grigen, Ad 
Rom. xvi. 13. 

Note (23), p. 217. 
See the " Canon " published by Muratori in his Antiquitates 
Italioe Medii 2Evi, v where the writer (Hegesippus ?) says, that 
" the book of the Shepherd was written very lately, in our 
own times, by Hermas, while his brother Pius presided over 
the Eoman Church as bishop." And compare Burton, Eecles. 
Hist. vol. ii. p. 104 ; Alford, 'Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 441 ; 
Bunsen, Hippolytus, vol. i. p. 184 ; and Norton, Genuineness of 
the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 341, 342. 

Note (24), p. 218. 
Hermas mentions the mission of the Apostles — " Tales sunt 
qui crediderunt Apostolis, quos misit Dominus in totum orbem 
prazdicare? (Past. iii. 9, § 25 ; p. 122.) Their travels 
throughout the world — " Hi duodecim montes quos vides, duo- 
decim sunt gentes quos totum obtinent orbem. Prsedicatus est 
ergo in eis Filius Dei, per eos quos ipse ad illos misit" (Ibid. 
§ 17 ; p, 120.) Their sufferings are indicated in the following 
passage — " Dico ei : Domine, vellem scire qua? sustinuerant. 
Audi, inquit ; feras bestias, jiagella, carceres, cruces, causa no- 
minis ejus." (Ibid. i. 3, § 2; p. 78.) 

Note (25), p. 218. 
See Burton's Eecles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 73, and p. 496. 

Note ( 26 ), p. 218. 
Ap. Eusab. Hist. Eecles. iv. 3 ; vol. i. p. 230 ; — Toy 8e 
XcoTrjpos rjucbv tcl epya del irapr\v d\r)6rj yap rjv ol Oepairev 
Oevres, ol dvao-Tavres etc ve/cpoov, ot ovk 6j(f>07]o-av /jlovov Oepa- 

Vol. iii. pp. 853, 854. 

2 F 2 



436 NOTES. [Lect. Vin. 

irevofjbevot, teal aviardfjuevoi, dXkd kclI del irapovrer ovSe eTrihn- 
/jlovvtos fiovov rod Xcorrjpo^, dWa koX diraXKayevTO^;, rjaav eirl 
y^povov lkclvov, ware real et? rov<; rj/juerepov^ %povov<; 
rtves avrwv d(f)l/covro. 

Note ( 27 ), p. 218. 

Burton, JEccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. Ill ; Norton (Genuineness of 
the Gospels, vol. i. p. 126) says a. d. 150. So the Benedictine 
Editors. Bimsen and others date it eleven years earlier, A. d. 
139. (See Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i. p. 213. Compare 
Bishop Kaye, Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin 
Martyr, pp. 11, 12 ; who however declines to decide between 
the earlier and the later date.) 

Note ( 28), p. 219. 

Burton, E. H. vol. ii. pp. 128, 129. According to its title, 
the second Apology was addressed to the Senate only (irpbs 
rrjv *¥(Dfjiaiwv crvy/cXnrov) ; but it contains expressions which 
imply that it was addressed to an emperor, and Eusebius tells 
us that it was actually offered to M. Aurelius. 

Note ( 29 ), p. 219. 
Kaye, Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr, ch. i. p. 3. 

Note ( 30 ), p. 219. 

Paley, Evidences, part i. ch. vii. p. 75. Professor Norton 
remarks — "From these works of Justin might be extracted a 
brief account of the life and doctrine of Christ, corresponding 
with that contained in the Gospels, and corresponding to such 
a degree, both in matter and words, that almost every quota- 
tion and reference may be readily assigned to its proper place 
in one or other of the Gospels. 

Note ( 31 ), p. 220. 

The following are among the most important of Justin's 
testimonies : — 

1. 'Icoatjcj) Be, 6 rrjv Map lav [Aefjuvno-rev/uLevos, fiovknOeh irpo- 
repov eKJSaXelv rrjv fivncrTrjv avrw Mapid/x, vo/xl^cov eyfcv\xovelv 
avrrjv e/c avvovo-ias clvSpbs, Tovreanv dirb iropveias, hi opdfia- 
T09, KeKeXevaro jJLY] ifcfiaXeiv rr\v yvvai/ca avrov, eiirovros avrro 



Lect. VIIL] NOTES. 437 

rod cfravevros dyyeXov on i/c Uvev/naros r Ay lov b eyei Kara ya- 
arpos icTTL' cf)o/3r}6els ovv ovk €K/3e/3Xr)Kev avrrjv, dXXa drroypa- 
(f>ri$ ovT7)<? ev rfj 'lovBaiq rore rrpoorr\s eirl Yivpr\vlov, aveXrfkuOei 
dirb Na^aper, evOa cpKec, els l^TjOXeefi, bOev rjv, drroypd-^aaOai' 
dirb yap rrjs KaroiKovarjs rr\v yrjv ifcelvTjv cpvXrjs ''lovBa to yevos 
rjv. Kal avrbs dpua rfj WLaplq /ceXeverai e^eXOelv els Acyvirrov, 
teal elvat i/cel dfia rep nraiBitQ, dyjois dv avrols diroKaXixpOj] errav- 
eXOelv els rrjv 'lovBaiav. Yevvr]6evros Be rore rov rraiBiov ev 
TSrjdXee/UL, iirecBr) 'Icoar)<p ovk elyev ev rfj Koojjur] eicelvrj ttov Kara- 
Xvaai, ev Be airrjXaita nvl crvveyyvs rrjs kcojztjs KareXvcre' ical 
rore avrcov ovrcov etcel, ereroKet rj ~Mapia rov Xpiarbv, teal ev 
cpdrvrj avrbv ereOeiKei' oitov eXOovres ol dirb 'Apa/Slas /judyoi 
evpov avrov . . . Kal 6 'JipcoBijs, fiy enaveXO ovrcov rrpbs avrbv 
rcov dirb 'Apaftlas fidycov, cos rj^lcocrev avrovs 7roirjaai, dXXa 
Kara rd KeXevaOevra avrols Be aXXrjs 6Bov els ttjv ^copav avrcov 
diraXXayevrcov, Kal rov ^Icoo-rjcf) djjba rfj yiaplq real rco rraiBico, cos 
teal avrols dnroKeKaXvirro, rjBrj e^eXOovrcov els Alyvirrov, ov yi- 
vcoctkcov rbv rralBa ov eXrjXvOeiaav 7rpocrKvvrjcrai ol pbdyoi, irdv- 
ras dirXoos rovs rralBas rovs ev J$7)0Xee{M i/ceXevaev dvaipedrjvac. 
(Dialog, cum Tryphon. § 78 ; p. 175.) 

2. Tiavo-aaOai eBec [ta? Ovcrtas] Kara rrjv rod Jlarpbs /3ov- 
Xrjv, els tov Bid rrjs dirb rov yevovs tov *A(3padjjb, kol (pvXrjs 
^lovBa,, real AafilB nrapOevov yevvr]6evra vlbv rov Seov X.picrr6v, 
(Ibid. § 43 ; p. 139.) 

3. AiW/u? Seov erreXOovtra rfj irapOevcp iirecrKlaaev avrrjv, 
Kal Kvocpoprjarai rrapOevov ovcrav irerroii^Ke, Kal 6 dnrocrraXels Be 
rrpbs avrrjv rrjv rrapOevov kot eKelvo rov Kaipov dyyeXos ®eov, 
evrjyyeXlcraro avrfj elrrayv, 'iBov crvXX^yjrrj ev yaarpl eK Uvev- 
fiaros c Aylov, Kal re^y vlbv, Kal vlbs t T / ^rlarov KXriOrjaerai, Kal 
KaXeaeis rb ovo/JLa avrov 'Itjctovv avros yap acocrei rbv Xabv av- 
rov dirb rcov dfiaprtcov avrcov. (Apolog. i. § 13 ; p. 64.) 

4. Kal o Tpvcpcov, Xv yap cofJuoXoyrjo-as rjfitv, ecprj, on Kal 
irepLer/ui r q07j, Kal rd dXXa rd vb/jLi/jua rd Bed Mcoaeoos Bcara^Oevra 
ecjyvXa^e. K.ayd> direKpivdyunqv ; ' fl/jLoXoyrjcrd re Kal 6/JLoXoyco. 
(Dial, cum Tryphon. § 67 ; p. 164.) 

5. Kal yap ovros b flacnXevs 'JipcoBys, fiaOcov dirb rcov irpecr- 
(3vrepoov rov Xaov v/jlcov, rore ekOovrcov rrpbs avrbv rcov dirb 
'Apafiias /jidycov, Kal elirovrcov e% darepos rov ev rco ovpavco 
cpavevros eyvcoKevai brt fiacriXevs yeyevrjrai iv rfj %oopq v/ncov, 



438 NOTES. [Lect. VIII. 

Kal r^XOofxev irpoo-Kvvrjaai avrov. Kal ev Br)6Xee/jL rcov rrpecrpv 
repcov elrrovrcov, on yeypairrat ev rco rrpocpTjrr) ovrto?, Kal trv, 
J$7]9\€€fM, k. r. X. Tcov dirb 'Apa{3la<; ovv fjudycov eXOovrcov eh 
T$7]&\ee/jL, Kal 7rpoo-KW7]advrcov rb rraihtov, real TrpoariveyKavrcov 
avrco htopa, %pvcrov, Kal Xiftavov, Kal o-fjivpvav, iirethrj kot diro- 
fcdXvyjriv . . . eKeXevcrOecrav fir) erraveXOelv 7rpo? rbv 'Hpcofyv. 
(Ibid § 78 ; pp. 174, 175.) 

6. Ka/cet (so. ev Alyvirrco) rjcrav drreXOovres [o 'Icoo-rjcj) Kal rj 
M.ap(a\ axpis av drreOavev 6 airofcreivas ra ev B?7#Xee//, rraiBia 
( Jlpa)8r)$, Kal 'Ap^eXao? avrbv BceBe^aro. (lb. § 103 ; p. 198.) 

7. C X2? Se Kal Xr)creiv efjieXXe rovs aXXov? dvOpdiirov^ yevvrj- 
6el$ 6 Xpicrrbs a%/o^9 avSpoaOf), orrep teal yeyovev, aKovaare rcov 
rrpoeiprj/nevcov et? rovro. {A/polog. i. § 35 ; p. 65^) 

8. 'E\#oz/to? rov 'Itjctov eVt tov 'lopSdvyv, Kal vo/nc^o/jievov 
'IcDo-rjcf) tov re/cTovo<; vlov hrrdpyeiv . . . Kal refcrovos vofja^o/Jbevov, 
ravra yap ra re/crovtfca epya elpyd^ero ev dvOpooTroLs tov, aporpa 
teal £vyd, k. t. X. (Dial cum Tryphon. § 88 ; p. 186.) 

9. Kal rore eXObvros rod 'Yrjaov errl rbv 'lopSdvrjv rrorafjubv, 
evOa 6 'Icoavrj? e^dirn^e, KareXOovros rod 'Irjo-ov errl to vScop, 
/cal Trvp dvrjfyOr) ev tw 'lopBdvrj, Kal dvaSvvro? avrov drrb rod 
vBaros, ob? rrepLcrrepdv rb (l Ayiov Tivev/xa eTTLTrrrjvai eV avrbv 
eypayjrav ol drroaroXoi avrov. (Ibid. § 88 ; pp. 185, 186.) 

10. 'Icodvvov yap KaOe^o/Juevov eirl rod 'lopSdvov, Kal fcrjpvcr- 
crovro? fBaTrriG-fxa fjueravoias, Kal %covr)v hepfJbarlvt]v Kal evSv/xa 
drrb rpt^cov KafirjXov fiovov cpopovvros, Kal fX7)hev ea0lovro<; rrXrjv 
aKpihas Kal /aeXc dypiov, ol dvOpcoirou vireXdpuftavov avrbv elvat 
rbv Xpicrrov. IIpo? oi)? Kal avrbs e/36a, Ovk el/bu 6 Xpiarbs, 
dXXa (fxovrj ftocovras' r\^ei yap 6 la^vporepo^ /jlov, ov ovk elfxi 
iKavbs ra vrrohrjfjbara (Baardo-ai. (Ibid. 1. s. c. p. 186.) 

11. "Ore yap avOpcorros yeyovev [o Xptcrro?], nrpoarjXOev avrS 
6 $id(3oXo<$, rovreartv rj hvvajjbis eKelvr) rj Kal o<fii<; KeKXrjfjuevTj Kal 
Saravas, rretpd^cov avrbv, Xal dycovi^o/JLevos KarafBaXelv, Slcl rb 
d^tovv irpoaKvvrjo-ai avrov. f O he avrov KareXvae Kal KareftaXev, 
e\eyi;a<; on rrovrjpos eart, rrapa rr/v ypacf)r)v d^ccov irpoaKvvelo-Qai 
&>? ®eo?, drroardrT)^ tt)? rod Seov yva)/jb7)<; yeyevrnxevos. 'Airo- 
Kpiverai yap avrw, Yeypairrai, K.vpcov rbv @ew rrpoo-Kvvr}- 
cet?, Kal avrco fMovo) Xarpevaet^. (Ibid. § 125 ; p. 218.) 

12. "O-n Be Kal Qeparrevaeiv irdaa^ voaovs, Kal veKpov<; dve- 
yepelv 6 r)fxerepo^ Xpto-To? rrpoe^revOr), aKovaare rwv XeXey/xe- 



Lect. VOL] NOTES. 439 

vcov ecrrt, Be ravra' Tfj Trapovo~la avTov akelrat %wXo9 &>9 eXa- 
<£>09, /cal rpavrj ecrrai yXcoaaa fioyiXdXcov tvc^XoI dvaflXetyovaL, 
teal \67Tpol Ka6api(r6rj(T0VTai, koX ve/cpot avacrTrjaovTai /cal irepi- 
iraT^a-ovcriv. f 'Ort Be tclvtcl eirol^crev, Ik twv eirl YIovtlov TiiXa- 
tov yevo/mevcov d/CTCov fiaOelv BvvaaOe. (Apolog. i. § 48 ; p. 72.) 

13. Kttl €K T0VTQ3V TOV TiqaOVV TWV fJL€T aVTOV yeVTjCTO/JLeVCOV 

TrpoyvGoo-TTjv e7rio-rdfji€6a, ical e'f aXXcov Be ttoXXcov osv irpoelire 
yevr\o~eaQai to £9 iriGTevovcn /cal bfioXoyovoriv avrov Xptarov. 
K<zl yap a irdo-j^oixev nrdvra dvaipovfjbevoi virb tcov ol/ceicov, 
irpoelnrev rjfiiv fieXXeiv yeveaOai, ware Kara jxrjBeva rponrov 
eTTcX^-^nfjbov avrov Xoyov <palvecr0ac. (Dial, cum Tryphon. 
§ 35 ; p. 133.) 

14. Kal yap vtbv ®eov HpiaTov /card rrjv tov UaTpbs avrov 
diroKaXv^nv enriyvbvTa avrov eva tmv /ubaOrjTwv avrov ^l/bicova 
TrpoTepov /caXov/juevov, eircovo/jiaae TieTpov. (lb. § 100 ; p. 195.) 

15. To fieTcovo/uLafcevai avrov TieTpov eva tcov diroaToXcov . . . 
jjueTa tov /cal aXXovs Bvo dBeX<f>oi><; vlovs Ze/3eBalov 6Wa? yLtero)- 
vofjua/cevat ovbfJbaTi tov ^oavepyh, 6 eaTiv viol ftpovTrjs, crrj/jiav- 
Ti/cbv rjv tov ambv e/celvov elvai. Ibid. § 106 ; p. 201.) 

16. IIwXo? Tt? ovov elaTrj/cei, ev tlvI elcrbBcp koj/jlt}^ Trpb? djub- 
ireXov BeBe/mevos, bv e/ceXevaev dyayeiv avrS Tore tov<; yvirpl- 
fiovs avTov, /cal dyQevTos eirc/Bas e/cdOtcre, /cal eloreXr)Xv6ev els 
'lepoaoXvfia. {Apolog. i. § 32 ; p. 63.) 

17. Ql dirbo-ToXoi, ev toi$ yevofxevots vif avTcov aTrofjuv^fiovev- 
fiacnv, a /caXetTai evayyeXia, ovtcos irapeBcoKav evTeTcCkQai av- 
to?9 tov 'Irjaovv Xa/Bovra dpTOV, ev^aptarTrjaavTa elirelv Tovto 
7ToietTe els ttjv dvafjuvrjalv fJbov TOVTeaTi to coo/bid /jlov /cal to 
TTOTypiov o/W&>9 XaftovTa /cal ev^apicrTrjaavTa elirelv Tovto 
eo~Ti alfjud /jlov koX /lovois avTols jJueTaBovvai. (Ibid. §66; p. 83.) 

18. Tfj rj/xepa yirep e^ieXXe aTavpovaOai, Tpels tcov fiaOiyTCOv 
avrov TrapaXaftbzv eh to opo9 to Xeyojuuevov 'YiXaioov, irapaKel- 
fievov ei>6v$ T(p va£> to> ev 'lepovcraXrj/jL, rjv^eTO Xeycov TlaTep, 
el BvvaTov eo~Ti, irapeXOeTco to TroTr]piov tovto air efiov' /cal 
fierd tovto evxb/xevos Xeyet, M?) o>9 eyeb /SovXojuaL, aXX' &>9 o~v 
OeXeir {Dial, cum Tryphon. § 99 ; p. 194.) 

19. C H tov la'xypov avTov Xoyov 8vva/M<; . . . hroyjiv ea^e . . . 
o-iyijaavTOS avrov /cal /jL7)/ceT0 eirl YIovtiov HiXaTov diroKplvao'- 
6 at firjBev paqBevl ftovXo/jLevov. (Ibid. § 102 ; p. 197.) 

20. ' 'H pcoBov Be tov ' Ap^eXaov BtaBe^afievov, XajBuvTOs tt)v 



440 NOTES* [Lect. VII I. 

e^ovcrlav rrjv cnrove/JLTjOelcrav avrch, co Kal UiXdros ^apt^ofxevo^ 
SeSeLievov rbv 'Irjaovv eW/i^e. k. r. X. (Ibid. § 103 ; p. 198 ; 
compare Apolog. i. § 40 ; p. 67, C.) 

21. 'It^ctoi)? he Xptcrrb<; e^erdOr) ras yelpa?, crravpcoOeh virb 
roiv 'lovhaiwv ... &)? elrrev 6 7rpo<firjrr}<; . . .to he "Qpvtjdv /jlou 
yelpa? zeal rrohas, i^rjyrjcrts rcov iv roj aravpea irayevroav ev rah 
X e P <Ji Kai TC ^ vrooiv avrov tj/jlcov tjv. Kal puerd to crravpcbcrac 
avrbv, ejBaXov /ckrjpov eirl rbv iLiarcorLibv avrov. (Apolog. i. § 
35 ; p. 65 ; compare § 38 ; p. 6Q.) 

22. Mera ovv rb aravp(x)Qf)vai avrbv, teal ol yvojpLfioi avrov 
irdvre^ drrear^aav, dpvr]ad[i6VOL avrov vcrrepov he, etc vetcpoiv 
dvaardvro^, Kal 6(f>0evro<; avroh, teal rah irpo<\>v)reiais evrvyeiv> 
ev ah ravra irdvra rrpoeipnvro yevrjaofieva, hchd^avros, teal eh 
ovpavbv dvepyoiievov Ihbvres, teal rncrrevcravres, fcal hvvapuv 
etceZOev avroh rre/JL^Oelo-av irap avrov Xaftovres, Kal eh rrdv 
yevos dvOpoiTTCDv eX66vre<;, ravra ehlha^av, Kal diroaroXoc 
7rpor]yopev0r]o-av. (Ibid. § 50 ; p. 73.) 

23. Kal yap a7rohihovs rb TrvevLia eirl roj erravpep, elire- 
Tldrep, eh yelpds gov irapariOepLat rb rvvevLid llov. (Dial, cum 
Tryphon, § 105 ; p. 200.) 

24. Kal yap 6 Kvptos a^ehov Lieyjpis eairepas e/metvev eirl 
rod £vXov, /cal 7T/90? eairepav eOayjrav avrov elra aviarrj 777 
rplr V r)Liepa. (Ibid. §97: p. 193.) 

25. Ovhe ev yap oXa)? earl rb yevos dvOpooircov, elre fiapftd- 
pcov, elre '^XXtfvcov, ecre cbrXco? wrtviovv bvoLiari rrpocrayopevo- 
fjuevcov, rj dfia^o/Slcov r) doUoov KaXovLievcov, rj ev crK7)vah Krrjvo- 
rpocf)(ov oiKovvrcov, ev oh p^r) hid rov bvbfiaros rov aravpco6ev~ 
to? 'Irjaov evyai Kal evyapiariai ra> irarpl Kal iroLvrfj row 
oXcov ytvovrat. (Ibid. § 117; p. 211.) 



Note ( 32 ), p. 221. 
See pages 208 and 209. 

Note ( 33 ), p. 221. 

See especially Baur, in the Tiibinger Zeitschrift fur Theo- 
logie, 1836, fasc. iii. p. 199 ; 1838, fasc. iii. p. 149 ; and in a pam- 
phlet Ueber den Ur sprung des Episcopats, Tubingen, 1838, pp. 



Lect. VIII.] NOTES. 441 

148-185. Also compare his work, Die Ignatianischen Brief en 
und ihr neuester Kritiker, eine Streitsehrift gegen Hernn Bunsen, 
8vo., Tubingen, 1848. Schwegler and others have followed 
in the same track. 

Note (34), p. 222. 

I refer especially to the labours of Signor Marchi and Mons. 
Perret — the former in his Monumenti delle Arte Cristiane Pri- 
mitive nella Metropoli del Cristianesimo (4to, Rome, 1844), the 
latter in his magnificent work Les Catacombes de Borne (6 
volumes, folio, Paris, 1852-1857). In our own country two 
useful little works have appeared on the subject, Dr. Mait- 
land's Church in the Catacombs (London, 1847), and Mr. Spen- 
cer Northcote's Roman Catacombs (London, 1857). An able 
Article in the Edinburgh Review for January 1859 (Art. IV.) 
— to which I must here express myself as under considerable 
obligations — has made the general public familiar with the 
chief conclusions established by modern inquiry. 

Note ( 35 ), p. 223. 

See Bishop Burnet's Letters from Italy and Switzerland in 
1685 and 1686 (Rotterdam, 1687), pp. 209-211. 

Note (36), p. 224. 
Spencer Northcote, Roman Catacombs, p. 4. 

Note (37), p. 224. 
See note 4 on Lecture VII. p. 475. 

Note (38), p. 224. 
Edinburgh Review, No. 221. p. 106. 

Note (39), p. 224. 

The grounds upon which Mr. Spencer Northcote bases his 
calculation are these — 1. The incidental notices in the old 
missals and office-books of the Roman Church, and the descrip- 
tions given by ancient writers, mention no less than sixty 
different Catacombs on the different sides of Rome, bordering 



442 NOTES. [Lect. VIII. 

her fifteen great consular roads. Of these about one-third 
have been re-opened, but in only one case has there been any- 
accurate measurement. Father Marchi has carefully mea- 
sured a portion of the Catacomb of St. Agnes, which he calcu- 
lates at one-eighth of the entire cemetry, and has found the 
length of all its streets and passages to be about two English 
miles. This gives a length of 16 miles to the St. Agnes' 
Catacomb ; and as that is (apparently) an average one — cer- 
tainly smaller than some as well as larger than some — the 60 
Catacombs would contain above 900 (960) miles of streets. 
2. The height of the passages varies in the Catacombs, and 
the layers of graves are sometimes more, sometimes less nu- 
merous, occasionally not above three or four, in places thirteen 
or fourteen. There are also interruptions to the regular suc- 
cession of tombs from the occurrence of chapels, and monu- 
ments of some pretension (arcosolia). Allowing for these, it 
is suggested that we may take an average of ten graves, five 
on each side, to every seven feet of street ; and this calculation 
it is, which, applied to the 900 miles of street, produces the 
result of nearly seven millions of graves. 

Note (40), p. 225. 

Perret, Catacombes de Borne, vol. vi. p. 101 et seq. ; Spen- 
cer Northcote, Roman Catacombs, pp. 29, 30. For arguments 
to the contrary, see Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, 
pp. 142-151. 

Note (41), p. 225. 

Thus we find such inscriptions as the following : — Tempore 
Adriani Imperatoris Marius adolescens dux militum qui satis 
vixit dum vitam pro Cho cum sanguine consunsit in pace tandem 
quievit benemerentes cum lacrimis et metu posuerunt i. d. vi. 
(Maitland, p. 128.) And, JSfon unda letalis est ausa Constanti 
ferre quam licuit ferro coronam. (Ibid. p. 129.) And again, 

0HCro>PAHANTCrAAAHENTNCHTC 
HTrTAATTCnPo)$HAECTM<^AMHA 
HATo/TAQTHECCTNTHNIIAKE 
rEo><I>HAAANCHAAAcl>ECHT 



Lect. VIII.] NOTES. 443 

which may be thus explained— — 

6r)C TaypSrjavvs YaWrje vvvcrjv? 
rjvyvXarvs irpo) 0^Se cvfi cpa/ATjX- 
rja royra qvirjeacvvr nv ira/ce 
TeaxjyrjXa avcrfWa (J>6Ct]t. 

Hie G-ordianus, Qallice nuncius, 

Jugulatus pro fide, cum famil- 

ia tota, quieseunt in pace. 

Theophila ancilla fecit. (Perret, vol. vi. p. 152.) 

Note (24), p. 226. 
The entire inscription runs as follows : — Alexander 

MORTVVS NON EST SED VIVIT SVPER ASTRA ET CORPVS IN 
HOC TVMVLO QUIESCTT VITAM EXPLEVIT SUB ANTONINO IMPo 
QVIVBI MVLTVM BENE FITII ANTEVENIRE PRiEVIDERET PRO 
GRATIA ODIVM REDDIDIT GENVA ENIM FLECTENS VERO DEO 
SACRIFICATVRVS AD SVPPLICIA DVCITVR O TEMPORA &C. See 

Dr. Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, pp. 32, 33. 

Note (43), p. 226. 

" Dormit," " quiescit," " depositus est," are the terms used ; 
and from the same idea burial-places are called by the name, 
which has since become common in Christian lands; viz. 
Koi/ub7]T7]pta, " cemeteries " or " sleeping-places." See Marchi's 
Monumenti delle Arte Cristiani Primitive, &c. p. 63 ; Spencer 
Northcote, Catacombs, p. 162. " In pace " occurs, either at the 
beginning or at the end of an inscription, almost as a neces- 
sary formula. 

Note (44), p. 226. 

Northcote's Catacombs, p. 163. The contrast in this respect 
between Christian and Heathen monuments of the same 
date is very striking. See Maitland's Church in the Cata- 
combs, pp. 42, 43. 

Note (45), p. 227. 

Northcote's Catacombs, pp. 50-64. Compare M. Perrot's 
splendid work, Les Catacombes de Rome, where these subjects 



444 NOTES. [Lect. VIII. 

are (almost without exception) represented. The subjoined 
are the most important references. Temptation of Eve (vol. 
iv. PL 31 ; v. PL 12) ; Moses striking the rock (vol. i. PL 34, 
57 ; ii. PL 22, 27, 33 ; iii. PL 2, 6 ; iv. PL 28) ; Noah wel- 
coming the Dove (vol. ii. PL 53, 61 ; iv. PL 25, &c.) ; Daniel 
among the lions (vol. ii. PL 42, 61 : iii. PL 7, 36) ; the Three 
Children (vol. ii. PL 36, 39 ; iii. 7) ; Jonah under the gourd 
(vol. i. PL 67 ; vol. ii. PL 22, 28,. 39 ; vol. iii. PL 2, 5 ; &c.) ; 
Jonah and the whale (vol. iii. 16, 22 ; vol. v. PL 40, 57) ; Ado- 
ration of the Magi (vol. v. PL 12) ; Magi before Herod (vol. 
ii. PL 48) ; Baptism of Christ by John (vol. iii. PL 52, 55) ; 
Cure of the paralytic (vol. ii. PL 34, 48) ; Turning of Water 
into Wine (vol. iv. PL 28, No. 67) ; Feeding of the five thou- 
sand (vol. i. PL 27 ; iv. PL 29, No. 73) ; Raising of Lazarus 
(vol. i. PL 26 ; vol. ii. PL 61 ; vol. iii. PL 7, 36 ; vol. iv. PL 
25, 31, 32 ; vol. v. PL 13, &c.) ; Last Supper (vol. i. PL 29) ; 
Peter walking on the sea (vol. iv. PL 16, No. 85) ; Pilate 
washing his hands (Maitland, p. 260). To the historical sub- 
jects mentioned in the text may be added the following : — The 
Nativity (Perret, vol. iv. PL 16, No. 84) ; the conversation 
with the Woman of Samaria (ibid. vol. i. PL 81) ; and the 
Crucifixion (ibid. vol. i. PL 10 ; vol. iv. PL 33, No. 103). The 
only unhistorical scenes represented, besides the parabolic 
ones, are Tobias and the Angel (Perret, vol. iii. PL 26), and 
Orpheus charming the Beasts, which is frequent, 

Note (46), p. 228. 

Tacit. Annal. ii. 39, 40 ; Suet. tit. Tib. § 25 ; Dio Cass. lvii. 
p. 613, C. Tacitus indeed says, in speaking of the claim made 
by Clemens, " credebatur Romse ; " but it was a faint belief, 
which Tiberius thought of allowing to die away of itself. And 
though his constitutional timidity prevented him from taking 
this course, he shewed his sense of the numerical weakness of 
the dupes, by bringing Clemens to Rome, when he might 
have had him assassinated at Ostia. Nor did his execution 
cause any tumult, either at Rome or in the provinces. 

Note (47), p. 229. 
Norton's Genuineness of the Qospels, vol. i. p. 100. 



Lect. VIII.] NOTES. 445 

Note (48), p. 230. 

Martyr. Ignat. § 3, p. 542 ; 'ESeftoiVro rbv dyiov Sea roov 
eirto-KOTTwv fcal irpeo-ftvrepoov Kal SiaKovoov at rr}<; 'Ao-/a? 
TroXeiS Kal i/c/c\r}crlaL, iravrcov eireiyofievcov nrpbs avrbv, el 
7T&)? fiepos %apicr [xaros Xd/3coo~c nrvev fJLariKod. 

Note (49), p. 230. 

So Eusebius, who had the works of Papias before him, 
relates. Hist. Eccles. iii. 39, p. 224. Nek pod dvdaraauv 
Kar avrbv yeyovvlav lo-ropel [o Uairiasi], teal av ttoXlv 
erepov irapdho^ov rrepl 'Iovcttov rbv emKX7]0evra ^apaajBdv 
yeyovbs, a>9 SrjXrjr^pcov (f>dp/na/cov ifjariovros Kal /uuTjSev drjSes 
$(,a tt]V rod "K.vplov %dpiv viroybeivavro^. 

Note ( 50 ), p. 230. 

JDiolog. cum Tryphon. § 88 ; p. 185. Kal irap rjfuv early 
Ihelv Kal Orjkelas Kal dpereva?, yapio-\iara dirb rod Jlvev/xaro^ 
rod Seod exovra^. Compare Apolog. ii. § 6 ; p. 93. AaLjubovLo- 
XrjTrrovs yap 7roXXov<; Kara rrdvra rbv koo-jjlov, Kal iv rfj v/uue- 
repa TroXei, rroXXol rcov rjfjberepcov dvOpcorrcov rcov XpLcrrtavcov, 
enropKi^ovres Kara rod ovo/JLaros 'I^croO ^Kpiarod, rad erravpeo- 
devros eirl Uovrlou YliXdrov, virb rcov aXXcov irdvrcov eirop- 
kigtcov Kal eiraarcov Kal (pap/jbaKevrcov jxtj laOevras Idaavro, Kal 
en vdv Iwvrat, Karapyovvres Kal eKhimKovres rods Kare^ovra^ 
rods dvOpooirov^ haifjbovas. See also Tryphon. § 39, p. 136 ; 
§ 76, p. 173, and § 85, p. 182. 

Note ( 51 ), p. 230. 
Miltiades ap. Euseb. Eist. Eccles. v. 17 ; pp. 351, 352. 

Note ( 52 ), p. 231. 

Adversus Hcereses, ii. 32, § 4 (vol. i. pp. 374, 375) ; Aib 
Kal iv rep eKeivov ovo/mari ol dXr)6cos avrod /jua6r)ral, Trap avrod 
Xa/36vre$ rrjv ydpw, eirureXodcriv err evepyecrict roov Xoarcov dv- 
Opcoircov, Kadoos eh eKao-ros avrcov rrjv Soopedv elXrj^e Trap' av- 
rod. Ol \xev yap Salfiovas eXavvovori (Beftaicos koX dXr)6co^,. ..ol 
he Kal irpoyvcocrtv eyovcri rcov f^eXXovrcov, Kal orrraala^ Kal pt]- 
cret? TrpotyrjTucds. * AXXot he tou9 Kafivovras Sid rrjs rcov yeipwv 



446 NOTES. [Lect. VIII. 

eiriOecrews Iwvrac koX vytels airoKaQicnacnv, W H8?; Be, tcaOox; 
ecf)a/jL€v, koX vefcpol r/yepOrjaav, koX nrapefjueivav crvv rjfilv lieavols 
erecn. And v. 6 (vol. ii. p. 334) ; Ka#o>? /cat ttgWcov clkovo- 
fjuev aSe\<ficov ev rfj i/cfckrjala Trpo<j)7]TiKci ^apla^ara i^ovrcov, 
/cal iravToBaTrals \a\ovvrcov yXcocracus, teal ra Kpvcfria dvOpcowcov 
et? cfravepbv wyovrcov eVt toS av/jL^epovri. 

Note ( 53 ), p. 231. 

See Tertullian, Apolog. § 23 ; Theophilus, Ad Autolyc. ii 8 ; 
p. 354, 0. D. ; Minucius Felix, Octav. p. 89. These passages 
affirm the continuance of the power of casting out devils to 
the time of the writers. On the general question of the ces- 
sation of miracles, Burton's remark (M H. vol. ii. p. 233) seems 
just, that " their actual cessation was imperceptible, and like 
the rays in a summer's evening, which when the sim has set, 
may be seen to linger on the top of a mountain, though they 
have ceased to fall on the level country beneath." 

Note (54), p. 231. 

The vast number of the Christians is strongly asserted by 
Tertullian, Apolog. § 37 ; " Hesterni sumus, et vestra omnia 
implevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, 
castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senatum, forum. Sola 
vobis relinquimus templa. Cui bello non idonei, non prompti 
fuissemus, etiam impares copiis, qui tarn libenter trucidamur, 
si non apud istam disciplinam magis occidi liceret quam occi- 
dere. Potuimus et inermes nee rebelles, sed tantummodo dis- 
cordes, solius divortii inviclia adversus vos dimicasse. Si enim 
tanta vis hominum in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupisse- 
mus a vobis, suffudisset utique dominationem vestram, tot 
qualiumcunque amissio civium ; immo etiam et ipsa destitu- 
tione punisset. Proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem ves- 
tram, ad silentium rerum, et stuporem quendam quasi mortui 
orbis ; quaesissetis quibus imperaretis ; plures hostes quam 
cives vobis remansissent ; nunc enim pauciores hostes habetis 
pro multitudine Christianorum." See also Justin Martyr, 
Dialog, cum Tryphon. § 117 (pp. 210, 211), quoted in note 31, 
§ 25 ; p. 528. 



Lect. VIII. j NOTES. 447 

Note ( 55 ), p. 235. 

The attempts of Strauss to prove variations in the story 
— irreconcilable differences between the accounts of the 
different Evangelists — appear to me to have failed signally. 
See above, note 33 on Lecture VI. pp. 468-470. 

Note ( 58 ), p. 236. 

Strauss himself admits this difference to a certain extent 
(Leben Jesu, Einleitung, § 14 ; vol. i. p. 67, E. T.) ; and 
grants that the Scripture miracles are favourably distin- 
guished by it from the marvels of Indian or Grecian fables ; 
but he finds in the histories of Balaam, Joshua ( ! ), and 
Samson, a similar, though less glaring, impropriety. Cer- 
tainly the speaking of the ass is a thing sui generis in 
Scripture, and would be grotesque, were it not redeemed by 
the beauty of the words uttered, and the important warning 
which they contain — a warning still only too much needed 
— against our cruel and unsympathetic treatment of the 
brute creation. 

Note ( 57 ), p. 237. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 144 ; vol. iii. p. 396, E. T. The 
entire passage has been given in note 26 on Lecture I. 



(448) 



ADDITIONAL NOTE TO LECTURE Y. 



On the Identification of the Belshazzar of Daniel with 
Bil-shar-uzur son of Nabu-nahit. 

Since the foregoing sheets were in type, my attention has 
been called by an anonymous correspondent to a difficulty 
in the proposed identification of Belshazzar with Bil-shar-uzur, 
son of Nabu-nahit, arising from his probable age at the time 
of the siege of Babylon. If Nabu-nahit (Nabonadius), as 
suggested in the text, a married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar 
after his accession to the throne, as he only reigned seventeen 
years in all, Bil-shar-uzur, supposing him the son of this 
wife, could have been no more than sixteen years of age, 
when left to administer affairs at Babylon. This, it is 
said, is too early an age for him to have taken the chief 
command, and to have given a great feast to " his princes, 
his wives, and his concubines." b The difficulty here started 
does not appear to me very great. In the East manhood 
is attained far earlier than in the West, and husbands of 
fourteen or fifteen years of age are not uncommon. Im- 
portant commands are also not unfrequently entrusted to 
princes of no greater age ; as may be seen by the instances 
of Herod the Great, who was made governor of Galilee 
by his father at fifteen ; d of Alexander Severus, who 
became Emperor of Rome at seventeen ; e and of many 
others. There is thus nothing unusual in the possession 
of regal dignity, and an establishment of wives, on the 
part of an Oriental prince in his sixteenth or seventeenth 
year. If Nabonadius married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar 
as soon as he came to the throne, and had a son born 



a Page 135. 

b Dan. v. 2. 

c " He had now becenie a man" 
says Mr, Layard of a young Bedouin, 
" for he was about fourteen years 



old." {Nineveh and Babylon, page 
295.) 

d Joseph. Ant. Jud. xiv. 9, § 2. 

e Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. vi. 
vol. i. p. 182. 



ADDITIONAL NOTE TO LECTURE V. 449 

within the year, he may have associated him in the govern- 
ment when he was fourteen, which would have been in his 
own fifteenth year. This youth would then, in the seven- 
teenth and last year of his father's reign, have entered on 
the third year of his own joint rule, as we find recorded of 
Belshazzar in Daniel/ 

Another way of meeting the difficulty has been sug- 
gested. Nabonadius, it is said, may have been married 
to a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar before he obtained the 
crown. It is only an inference of Abydenus, and not a 
statement of Berosus, that he was entirely unconnected with 
Laborosoarchod. This is undoubtedly true. But the infer- 
ence, which Abydenus drew from the text of Berosus, seems 
to me a legitimate one. Berosus, who has just noticed the 
relationship of Neriglissar to the son of Nebuchadnezzar, 
whom he supplanted, would scarcely have failed to notice 
that of Nabonadius to his grandson, if he had known of any 
relationship existing. At any rate he would not have called 
the new king, as he does, "a certain Nabonnedus of Babylon" 
Na{3ovvr)8a> tiv\ t&v i/c T$a/3v\(bvo<;), had he been the uncle 
of the preceding monarch. 

My attention has been further drawn to a very remark- 
able illustration which the discovery of Belshazzar's position 
as joint ruler with his father furnishes to an expression twice 
repeated in Daniel's fifth chapter. The promise made g and 
performed 11 to Daniel, is, that he shall be the " third ruler" 
in the kingdom. Formerly it was impossible to explain this 
or to understand why he was not the second ruler, as he 
seems to have been under Nebuchadnezzar, 1 and as Joseph 
was in Egypt, j and Mordecai in Persia. k It now appears, 
that, as there were two kings at the time, Belshazzar, in 
elevating Daniel to the highest position tenable by a subject, 
could only make him the third personage in the Empire. 
This incidental confirmation of what was otherwise highly 
probable, is a most valuable and weighty evidence. 



f Dan. viii. 1. 
« Verse 16. 
h Verse 29. 



1 Dan. ii. 28. 
J Gen. xli. 41-43. 
k Esth. x. 3. 



2 G 



( 450 ) 



Specification of the Editions quoted, or referred to, 
in the foregoing Notes. 

A. 

Abydenus, Fragments of, in C. Miiller's Fragm. Hist, Gr. vol. iv. 
ed. Didot, Paris, 1851. 

^Elian, Hist. Var., ed. Liinemann, Gottingen, 1811. 

Alexander Polyhistor, Fragments of, in the Fragm. H. Gr. 
vol. ii. Paris, 1848. 

Alford, Dean, Greek Testament, London, Eivingtons, 1840, &c. 

Ambrose, S., Opera, (Benedictine Edition), Paris, 1686. 

Appian, Opera, ed. Tollius, Amsterdam, 1760. 

Aristotle, Opera, ed. Tauchnitz, Leipsic, 1831, &c. 

Arrian, Exped. Alex. Magn., ed. Tauchnitz, Leipsic, 1829. 

Artemidorus, Oneirocritica,, Paris, Morell, 1603. 

Asiatic Eesearches, Calcutta, 1788, &c. 

Athanasius, S., Opera, (Benedictine Edition), Paris, 1698. 

Auberlen, Prophecies of Daniel, (translated by Saphir), Edin- 
burgh, Clark, 1856. 

Augustine, S., Opera, (Benedictine Edition), Antwerp, 1700. 

B. 

Barnabas, S., Epistola, in Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici (vol. i.), 

ed. 2da, Amsterdam, 1724. 
Bauer, Hebraische Mythologie, Leipsic, 1802. 
Baumgarten, De Fide Libri Estherae, Halee, 1839. 
Beaufort, Incertitude de l'Histoire Eomaine, Utrecht, 1738. 
Bengel, Archiv, Tubingen, 1816-1821. 

Berosus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. Paris, 1848. 
Bertheau, Comment on Chronicles, (translated by Martin), 

Edinburgh, Clark, 1857. 
Bertholdt, Einleitung in sammtliche kanonische und apocry- 

phische Schriften des Alt. undNeu. Test., Erlangen, 1812-1819. 
Birks, Eev. T. E., Horao Apostolica3, attached to his edition of 

Paley's Horas Paulina?, London, 1850. 
Bociiart, Geographia Sacra, ed. 4ta., Leyden, 1707. 
Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Gra?carum, Berlin, 1828-1843. 
Bouhier, Eecherches sur l'Histoire d'Herodote, Dijon, 1746. 
Brand-is, Eerum Assyriarum Temp. Emendata, Bonn, 1853. 
Buddeus, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, Halas Magd., 

1744-1752. 
Bunsen, Egypt's Tlace in Universal History (translated by 

Cockerell), London, 1848, &c. 

■, Hippolytus and his Age, London, Longman, 1854. 

, Philosophy of Universal History, London, Longman, 

1854. 



EDITIONS QUOTED IN THE FOREGOING NOTES. 451 

Burnet, Bishop, Letters from Italy and Switzerland in 1685 and 

1686, Eotterdam, 1687. 
Burton, Canon, Eccles. History of the First Three Centuries, 

Oxford, Parker, 1833. 
Butler, Bishop, Analogy of Religion, Oxford, 1833. 
Buttman, Mythologus, Berlin, 1828, 1829. 
Buxtoef, Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum, Basle, 1676. 

C. 

Calmet, Commentaire Litteral, Paris, 1724-1726. 

Carpzov, Introductio ad Libros CanonicosVet, Test.,Leipsic, 1721. 

Carwithen, Bampton Lectures, Oxford, 1809. 

Casaubon, L, Exerc. Antibaron., folio edition, London, 1614. 

Champollion, Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique des Anciens 

Egyptiens, Paris, 1828. 
Chardin, Voyage en Perse, Amsterdam, 1735. 
Cicero, Opera, ed. Priestly, London, 1819. 
Clemens Alexandrinus, ed. Potter, Venice, 1757. 
Clemens Eomanus, in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, Oxford, 1840. 
Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, Oxford, 1830-1841. 
Conringius, Adversar. Chronolog., in Gravius's Syntagma vari- 

arum Dissertationum rariorum, Ultraj., 1701. 
Constitutiones Apostolicse, in Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici, 

(vol. i.) ed. 2da., Amsterdam, 1724. 
Conybeare and Howson, Life and Letters of St. Paul, London, 

Longman, 1850. 
Corrodi, Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte des jiidischen 

und christlichen Bibelkanons, Halle, 1792. 
Cratippus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Plist. Gr. vol. ii. Paris, 

1848. 
Ctesias, Fragmenta, ed. Bahr, Frankfort, 1824. 
Cureton, Canon, Corpus Ignatianum, London, Rivingtons, 1849. 
Cyrillus Alexandrinus, ed. Aubert, Paris, 1638. 

D. 

Dahlmann, Life of Herodotus, (translated by Cox), London, 1845. 
Demosthenes, ed. Dindorf, Oxford, 1846-1849. 
Des Vignoles, Chronologie de l'Histoire Sainte, Berlin, 1738. 
De Wette, Einleitung in das Alt. Testament, 7th edition, Berlin, 
1852. 

, translated by Theodore Parker. (See Parker). 

-, Archaologie, 3rd edition, Berlin, 1842. 

Digesta, seu Pandecta, Florence, 1553. 

Dio Cassius, Plist. Roman., Hanover, 1606. 

Dio Chrysostom, ed. Morell, Paris, 1604. 

Diodorus Siculus, ed. Wesseling, Bipont, 1793, &c. 

Dionysius Halicarnassus, folio edition, Oxon., 1704. 

Dius, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. iv. Paris, 1851. 

Dodwell, Dissertat. in Ireneeum, Oxford, 1689. 



452 . EDITIONS QUOTED 

E. 

Eichhorn, Allgemeine Bibliotliek, Leipsio, 1787-1800. 

■ , Einleitung in das Alt. Testament, Leipsic, 1787 . 

, Einleitung in das Neu. Testament, Leipsic, 1804-1814. 

Epictetus, Dissertationes, ed. Schweighaeuser, Leipsic, 1790-1800. 

Epiphanius, Opera, ed. Schrey et Meyer, Cologne, 1682. 

Ersch and Gruber, Algemeine Encyclopadie der Wissenschaft 

und Kunst, Leipsic, 1818, &c. 
Eusebius, Chronica, ed. Mai, Milan, 1818. 

« , Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Burton, Oxford, ] 838. 

•, Prseparatio Evangelica, ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1843. 

Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2nd edition, Gottingen, 

1851-1858. 
- — , Propheten des Alten Bundes, Stuttgart, 1840. 

F. 

Faber, Horae Mosaic*, Oxford, 1801. 

Feilmoser, Einleitung in die Bticher d. Neuen Testaments, 

Tubingen, 1830. 
Fergusson, Palaces of Nineveh Restored, London, Murray, 1851. 
Ferrier, General, Caravan Journeys, London, Murray, 1850. 
Forster, Mahometanism Unveiled, London, 1829. 
Fritzsche, Aechtheit der Biicher Mosis, Rostock, 1814. 

G. 

Galen, Opera, ed. Kuhn, Leipsic, 1821-1833. 

George, Mythus und Sage, Berlin, 1837. 

Gesenius, Geschichte der Hebraische Sprache und Schrift, 

Leipsic, 1815. 
■ , Lexicon Hebraicum, (Engl. Translation), Cambridge, 

1852. 

Hebrew Grammar, (Engl. Translation), London, 



Bagster, 1846. 

, Scriptures Lingua?que Phaeniciae Monumcnta, Leipsic, 

1857. 

-, Thesaurus Philologicus Ling. Hebr., Leipsic, 1829. 



Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3rd edition, 

London, 1777-1788. 
Gladstone, Homer and the Homeric Age, Oxford, 1 858. 
Grabe, Spicilegium Patrum, editio altera, Oxford, 1714. 
Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, 2nd edition, London, 

Cadell, 1815. 
Grosier, Description de la Chine, Paris, 1818-1820. 
Grote, History of Greece, London, Murray, 1846-1856. 

H. 

Halls, Dr., Analysis of Chronology, London, 1809-1812. 
Hartmann, Forschungen uber d. Pentateuch, Rostock, 1831. 



IN THE FOREGOING NOTES.- 453 

Haevernick, Handbuch des historiscli-kritischen Einleitung in 
das Alt. Testament, Erlangen, 1837. 

1 Introduction to the Old Testament (English Trans- 
lation), Edinburgh, Clark, 1852. 

■ , Introduction to the Pentateuch (English Transla- 
tion), Edinburgh, Clark, I860. 

Hecat^us Abderita, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. 
Paris, 1848. 

Heeren, Asiatic Nations, (English Translation), Oxford, Talboys, 
1833. 

, Manual of Ancient History (English Translation), Ox- 
ford, Talboys, 1833. 

Hefele, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, 3rd edition, Tubingen, 
1847. 

Hengstenberg, Aegypten und Mose, Berlin, 1840. 

, Egypt, &o. (translated by Mr. Bobbins, with additional 

notes by Dr. Cooke Taylor), Edinburgh, Clark, 1845. 

-, Authentie des Daniel und Integritat des Secherias, 



Berlin, 1831. 
Herbst, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die heiligen Schriften 

des Alten Testaments (published by Welte after his decease), 

Karlsruhe, 1840-1844. 
Hermas, Pastor, in Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici (vol. i.), ed. 2da., 

Amsterdam, 1724. 
Hermippus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Paris, 

1849. 
Herodotus, ed. Bahr, Leipsic, 1830-1835. 
, (translated by the Author) with copious Notes and 

Appendices, London, Murray, 1858-9. 
Hesychius, Lexicon, ed. Albert, Leyden, 1746. 
Hincks, Dr., Translation of Black Obelisk Inscription, in Dublin 

University Magazine for October, 1853. 
Hieronymus, Opera, Benedictine Edition, Paris, 1693. 
Hitzig, De Cadyte urbe Herodotea, Gottingen, 1829. 

, Zwolf Kleinen Propheten erklart, Leipsic, 1838. 

Homer, Iliad, ed. Heyne, Leipsic, 1802. 

, Odyssey, ed. Lowe, Leipsic, 1828. 

Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, ed. Keble, Oxford, 1836. 

Hooper, Palmoni, an Essay on the Chronological and Numerical 

Systems of the Jews, London, Longman, 1851. 
Horne, Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the 

Holy Scriptures, 6th edition, London, Cadell, 1828. 
Hue, Voyage dans la Tartarie, Paris, 1853. 
Hussey, Eev. K., Sermons mostly Academical, Oxford, Parker, 

1849. 

I. J. 

Jablonsky, Opuscula, Leyden, 1804. 

Jackson, Chronological Antiquities, London, 1752. 



454 EDITIONS QUOTED 

Jahn, Aechtheit des Pentateuch, in Bengel's Archiv (vol. iii. 

parti.), Tubingen, 1816-1821. 

■n -, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Vienna, 1792. 

Ignatius, S., in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici (vol. ii.), Oxford, 
1840. 

Inscription, Behistun, in the Author's Herodotus, vol. ii. (Sec 
Herodotus.) 

of Tiglath-Pileser I., as translated by Sir Henry Eaw- 

linson, Mr. Pox Talbot, Dr. Hincks, and Dr. Oppert, published 
by the Bo}^al Asiatic Society; London, Parker, 1857. 

— , Nebuchadnezzar's Standard, in the Author's Herodotus, 

vol. iii. (See Herodotus.) 

on the Nimrud Obelisk, translated by Dr. Hincks. 

(See Hincks.) 

Inscriptions of three Assyrian Kings, translated by Mr. Fox Tal- 
bot. (See Talbot.) 

Inscriptiones Graecas, Bockh's Corpus Ins. Gr. (See Boeckh.) 

Josephus, Opera, ed. Havercarnp, Amsterdam, &c, 1726. 

■-, translated by Dr. Traill, with notes and essays, pub- 
lished in parts, London, 1847. 

Iren^eus, Advers. Haereses, ed. W. W. Harvey, Cambridge, 1857. 

Itinerarium Antoninum, in Bertius's Ptolemy. (See Ptolemy.) 

Justin, Epitome of Trogus Pompeius, ed. Gronovius, Leyden, 
1760. 

Justin Martyr, Opera, Hague, 1742. 

Juvenal, ed. Euperti, Leipsic, 1819-1820. 

K. 

Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary, English edition, 
London, Longman, 1855, &c. 

Kaye, Bishop, Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin 
Martyr, 3rd edition, London, Eivingtons, 1853. 

, Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, 

illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian, 2nd edition, Cam- 
bridge, 1829. 

Keil, Commentar iiber das Buch Josua, Erlangen, 1847. 

, Commentary on Joshua, (translated by Martin), Edinburgh, 

Clark, 1857. 

, Apologetischer Versuch iiber die Biicher der Chronik, Ber- 
lin, 1833. 

, Commentar iiber die Biicher der Konige, Berlin, 1846. 

, Commentary on the Books of Kings (translated by Mur- 
phy), Edinburgh, Clark, 1857. 

Kenrick, Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs, London, 1850. 

, Phoenicia, London, 1855. 

KerPorteh, Sir E., Travels, London, Longman, 1821-1822. 

Kitto, Biblical Cyclopaedia, (Burgess's edition), Edinburgh, 
Black, 1856. 



IN THE FOKEGOING NOTES. 455 

Knob el, Der Prophetismus der Hebraer, Breslau, 1837. 
KrjGLER, Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, Stuttgart, 1842. 

L. 

Lacroze, Lexicon iEgyptiaco-Latinum, Oxford, 1775. 

Larcher, Histoire d'Herodote, Paris, 1786. 

Lardner, Dr., Credibility of the Gospel History, Works, London, 

1815. 
L'Art de verifier les Dates, 8vo edition, Paris, 1819-1844. 
Latard, Nineveh and its Remains, London, Murray, 1849. 

, Nineveh and Babylon, London, Murray, 1853. 

Lee, Dr., Inspiration of Holy Scripture, 2nd edition, London, 

Rivingtons, 1857. 
Lepsius, Dr., Lettre sur l'Alphabet Hieroglyphique, Rome, 1837. 
Lewis, Sir G. C, Credibility of Early Roman History, London, 

Parker, 1855. 
-.__ ? Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, 

London, Parker, 1852. 
Lightfoot, Dr., Works, folio edition, London, 1684. 
Livy, ed. Twiss, Oxford, Talboys, 1840. 
Lobeck, Aglaophamus, Regimont., 1829. 
Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana, London, Nisbet, 1857. 
Longinus, De Sublimitate, Edinburgh, 1733. 
Lucian, Opera, ed. Hemsterhuis, Bipont., 1789, &c. 
Lyell, Sir C, Principles of Geology, 4th edition, London, Mur- 
ray, 1835. 
Lynch, Capt., Narrative of the United States' Expedition to the 

River Jordan and the Dead Sea, London, Bentley, 1852. 
Lysimachus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist, Gr. vol. iii. Paris, 

1849. 

M. 

Macbride, Dr., Mohammedan Religion Explained, London, 1857. 

Macrobius, Saturnalia, ed. Gronovius, Leyden, 1670. 

Maitland, Dr., The Church in the Catacombs, London, Longman, 
1846. 

Manetho, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Paris, 
1849. 

Mansel, Rev. H. L., Bampton Lectures for 1858, London, Mur- 
ray, 1858. 

Marchi, Monumenti delle Arti Cristiane primitive nella Metropoli 
del Cristianesimo, Rome, 1844. 

Marsh, Bishop, Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses, in his 
Lectures on Divinity, London, 1810-1823. 

Marsham, Canon Chronicus, folio edition, London, 1672. 

Martyrium Ignatii, in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici (vol. ii.), 
Oxford, 1840. 

Memoires de l'Academie dcs Inscriptions, Paris, 1729, &c. 



456 EDITIONS QUOTED 

Menander, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. Paris, 

1851. 
Mjchaelis, J. D., Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek, Frank- 
fort, 1771-1783. 
Michell, Eev. E., Bampton Lectures for 1849, Oxford, Parker, 

1849. 
Minucius Felix, Octavius, Oxford, 1627. 
Moses Chorenensis, Armenian History, ed. Whiston, (Armenian 

and Latin,) London, 1736. 
Mosheim, Historia Ecclesiastica, editio -altera, Helmstadt, 1764. 

, De Rebus ante Constantin. Magn. gestis, Helmstadt, 1 7.53. 

Movers, Die Phonizier, Berlin, 1849, &c. 

Mueller, C. 0., History of Greek Literature, completed by Dr. 

Donaldson, London, Parker, 1858. 
Muratori, Antiqnitates Italics Medii iEvi, Milan, 1740. 
Mure, Col., Literature of Ancient Greece, London, Longman, 

1850, &c. 
, Remarks on Two Appendices to Mr. Grote's History 

of Greece, London, Longman, 1851. 

N. 

Neander, Allgemeine Geschiclite der Christliche Religion und 
Kirche, 4th edition, Hamburg, 1847, &c. 

Neumann, Versuch einer Geschichte der Armeniscben Literatur, 
Leipsic, 1836. 

Newman, F., History of the Hebrew Monarchy, London, Chap- 
man, 1847. 

Newman, J. H., The Arians of the Fourth Century, London, 
Rivingtons, 1833. 

, Essay on Miracles, Oxford, Parker, 1843. 

Newton, Sir I., Chronology of Ancient . Kingdoms amended, 
London, 1728. 

Nicolaus Damascenus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. 
vol. iii. Paris, 1849. 

Niebuhr, B. G., History of Rome, (Hare and Thirlwall's trans- 
lation,) Cambridge, 1831-1842. 

, Kleine Schriften, Bonn, 1828. 

, Lectures on Ancient History, (translated by Dr. 

Schmitz,) London, 1852. 

, Life and Letters of, London, Chapman, 1852. 

, Vortrage iiber Alte Geschiclite, Berlin, Reimer, 



1847. 
Niebuhr, Marcus, Geschiclite Assure und Babels seit Phul, 

Berlin, 1857. 
Nortiicote, J. Spencer, The Roman Catacombs, second edition, 

London, 1859. 
Norton, Professor, Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 

2nd edition, London, Chapman, 1847. 



IN THE FOREGOING NOTES. 457 



0. 



Gckley, Life of Mohammed, in *his History of the Saracens, 

London,^Bohn, 1847. 
Offerhaus, Spicilegia Historico-Chronologica, Groningae, 1739. 
Olshausen, Biblischer Commentar iiber sammtl. Schriften cL 

Neuen Testaments, 3rd edition, Konigsberg, 1837. 
, Commentary on the Gospels, (translated by Fosdick,) 

3rd edition, Edinburgh, Clark, 1857. 
Oppert, Dr., Eapport d'une Mission scientifique en Angle terre, 

Paris, 1856. 
Origen, Opera, Benedictine edition, Paris, 1733-1759. 
Orosius, Historia adv. Paganos, Cologne, 1536. 
Ovid, ed. Soc. Bipontina, Strasburg, 1807. 



P. 

Paley, Evidences of Christianity, 25th edition, Glasgow, 1816. 
, Horae Paulina ; Works, edited by Kev. E. Lynam, vol. i. 

London, 1828. 
Parker, Theodore, Enlarged Translation of De Wette's Einleitung 

in das Alt. Test., Boston, 1842. 
Patrick, Bishop, Commentary on the Historical Books of the Old 

Testament, 4th edition, London, 1732. 
Pausanius, ed. Siebelis, Leipsic, 1822. 

Pearson, Yindiciae Epistolarum S. Ignatii, Cambridge, 1672. 
Perizonius, Origines Babilonicae et iEgyptiacae, editio altera, 

Duker, Utrecht, 1736. 
Perret, Les Catacombes de Eome, folio, 6 volumes, Paris, Gide, 

1851-1855. 
Petronius Arbiter, ed. Burmann, Utrecht, 1709. 
Philo Jutxeus, ed. Hoeschel, Frankfurt, 1691. 
Philostratus, ed. Olearius, Leipsic, 1709. 
Photius, Bibliotheca, ed. Hoeschel, Eouen, 1653. 
Plato, Phaedo, ed. Stanford, Dublin, 1634. 

Pliny, Hist. Nat. (ex Officin. Hack.), Leyden and Eotterdam, 1669. 
Pliny the Younger, Epistolae, ed. Cortius, Amsterdam, 1734. 
Plutarch, Opera, ed. A. Stephanus, Paris, 1624. 
Polybius, ed. Schweighaeuser, Oxford, Baxter, 1823. 
Polycarp, Epist., in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.), 

Oxford, 1840. 
Poole, Eev. E. Stuart, Horae iEgyptiacae, London, Murray, 1851. 
Powell, Professor, Order of Nature considered in reference to 

the Claims of Eevelation, a Third Series of Essays, London, 

Longman, 1859. 
Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico, 5th edit., London, 

Bentley, 1850. 

2 H 



458 EDITIONS QUOTED 

Prichard, Dr., Physical History of Mankind, 3rd edit., London, 

1836. 

, Historical Records of Ancient Egypt, London, 1838. 

Prideaux, Dr., Connection of % the History of the Old and New 

Testament, 4th edition, London, 1718. 
Procopius, Opera, in the Corp. Hist. Byz., ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 

1833-1838. 
Ptolemy, Geograph., ed. Bertius, Amsterdam, 1618. 
, Magna Syntaxis, Basle, 1538. 



R. 

Rask, Professor, Egyptian Chronology, in Prichard's Records of 
Ancient Egypt. (See Prichard). 

Rawlinson, Sir H. C., Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform In- 
scriptions, published by the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 
Parker, 1846-1849. 

, Commentary on the Inscriptions of Assyria and 

Babylon, London, Parker, 1850. 

— , Notes on the Early History of Babylonia, in the 

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part ii., London, 
Parker, 1856. 

Notes and Essays in the Author's Herodotus. See 



Herodotus.) 

Remusat, Nouveaux Melanges Asiatiques, Paris, 1829. 
Rennell, Geography of Herodotus, 4to edition, London, 1800. 
Rosellini, Monumenti dell' Egitto, parte prima, Monumenti Sto- 

rici, Pisa, 1832-1841. 
Rosenmueller, Scholia in Vet. Test., Leipsic, 1821, &c. 
Rossi, Etymologise iEgyptiaca?, Rome, 1808. 



S. 

Scaliger, De Emendatione Temporum, folio, Geneva, 1629. 
Seneca, ed. Elzevir, Amsterdam, 1672. 

Simplicius, Comment, ad Aristot. De Coelo, folio, Venice, 1526. 
Smith, Dr. W., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 

2nd edition, London, 1853. 
, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, London, 

1850. 

-, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, London 



1854. 

Dictionary of the Bible, London, Murray, 1860. 



Smith, G. Vance, Prophecies relating to Niniveh, London, Long- 
man, 1857. 
Socrates, Hist. Ecclesiastica, Cambridge, 1720. 



IN THE FOREGOING NOTES. 459 

Sophocles, ed. Valpy, London, 1824. 

Spanheim, Introductio ad Chronologiam et Historiam Sacram, 
Amsterdam, 1694. 

Spinoza, Tractatus theologo-politicus, 2nd edition, (no place or 
publisher's name,) 1674. 

Stackhouse, History of the Bible, Gleig's edition, London, Long- 
man, 1817. 

Stanley, Professor, Sinai and Palestine, London, Murray, 1856. 

Statius, pocket edition, Amsterdam, 1624. 

Strabo, ed. Kramer, Berlin, 1847-1852. 

Srauss, Leben Jesu, 4th edition, Tubingen, 1840. 

, The Life of Jesus, translated into English, London, 

Chapman, 1846. 

Stuart, Professor, History and Defence of the Old Testament 
Canon, edited by the Rev. P. Lorimer, London, 1849. 

Suetonius, ed. Baumgarten-Crusius, Leipsic, 1816. 

Suidas, Lexicon, ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1834. 

Syncellus, in the Corpus Hist. Byzant., ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1829, 



T. 

Tacitus (Brotier's), ed. Valpy, London, Whittaker, 1823. 
Talbot, H. Fox, Assyrian Texts translated, London, 1856. 
Tatian, Oratio adv. Grsecos, (with Justin Martyr,) Hague, 1742. 
Taylor, Isaac, Transmission of Ancient Books, London, 1859. 
Tertullian, Opera, ed. Rigaltius, Paris, 1675. 

, Bishop Kaye's, Ecclesiastical Hist., illustrated from 

Tertullian. (See Kaye.) 
Theile, Zur Biographie Jesu, Leipsic, 1837. 
Theophilus, ad Autolycum, with Justin Martyr,) Hague, 1742. 
Thucydides, ed. Bekker, Oxford, Parker, 1824. 
Trench, Dean, Notes on the Miracles, London, Parker, 1846. 



V. 

Valerius Maximus, Leyden, 1670. 

Vater, Commentar iiber den Pentateuch, Halle, 1802-1806. 

Vatke, Religion des Alten Testaments nach den kanonischen 

Buchern entwickelt, Berlin, 1835. 
Vestiges of Creation, 10th edition, London, 1853. 
Vitringa, Observationes Sacrae, Franequerse, 1711, 1712. 
Vitruvius, ed. De Laet, Amsterstam, Elzevir, 1649. 
Von Bohlen, Alte Indien, Konigsberg, 1830. 
Von Lengerke, Kenaan, Konigsberg, 1844. 
, Das Buch Daniel, Konigsberg, 1835. 



460 EDITIONS QUOTED IN THE FOREGOING NOTES. 

W. 

Wetstein, Nov. Testament. Graecum, Amsterdam, 1751, 1752. 
Whiston, Short View of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists, 

Cambridge, 1702. 
White, Bampton Lectures for 1784, Oxford, 1784. 
Wilkinson, Sir G., Ancient Egyptians, London, Murray, 1837- 

1841. 
, Notes and Essays in the Author's Herodotus. 

(See Herodotus.) 
Wilson, Professor H. H., Translations from Rig-Veda-Sanhita, 

London, 1850. 
Winer, Biblisches Realworterbuch, 3rd edition, Leipsic, 1847, 

1848. 
Woollston, Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour, 

London, 1727-1729. 

X. 

Xenophon, Opera, ed. Schneider et Dindorf, Oxford, 1817, <fec. 



THE END. 



LONDON : PRINTED KT W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STR1CET. 
AND CHARING CROSS. 



/ 



r#i 



100M-3-15-'06. (iu) 9366- '05. 

FINE FOR OVER-DETENTION TWO CENTS A DAY 
ALTERATIONS OF THE RECORDS BELOW ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED 



TAKEN 


TAKEN 


TVI7 


■y^KEN 


TAKEN 


M 




uu 


fc 




l io 




















; 1 
























































J 

































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson ParK Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



P. Tl,. 67-5- i 5- '07-20 M 



Public Library. 

WASHl 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 



All losses or injuries beyond reasonable 
wear, however caused, must be promptly 
adjusted by the person to whom the book 
is charged. 

Fine for over detention two cents a day 
(Sundays included). 

Books will be issued and received from 
9 A. M. to 9 P. M. (Sundays, July 4, 
December 25, excluded. 

Keep your Card in this Pocket. 



